Shouting would encroach on private property. It is a bad analogy. And...the appeal of neighborhood rights generally in regards to new restrictions on use of public property is pretty thin gruel. It was already illegal to defecate publicly (as also is your shouting) The neighbors have no more right than anyone else to public lands, only to their private property. However... The city can do this, as stupid or as silly as it may seem, and as poorly handled as in this case. Apparently they voted against this guy to do this sort of thing. There are about 20 or 30 other cities in the US that also have similar restrictions on use of public property for food distribution. Some have limits on frequency or volume so giving away half your sandwich might not get you busted. It is a silly law and we like to make fun of governments when they do silly things like this. Florida outlawed sharia and almost outlawed the internet last year due to a badly worded law against internet gambling cafes. http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/07/florida-outlaws-smart-phones-and-computers/Concerned moms also got "Breaking Bad" dolls banned from Toys R Us there. And the police force are among the worst speeders. The story that broke the news on that won a pulitzer: http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/public-service/01day1.pdfIt is a weird state, lots of tourism, alligators and manatees, and famous for being the drug cartel drop point for a few decades, this is pretty much just par for the course, but folks love it.  |
|
|
|
these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors. to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money. in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation.
I'm so sorry to have to say this again but you are out of you mind. The core devs you talk down on have been hacking for hours on Bitcoin's code for the previous few years. You think that you have got all the answers because you have a popular thread on bitcointalk forum and your join date says 2011 ? Did you even bother reading their blogs and understand where they are coming from? Who they are? What this project means to them? For some, it is the culmination of nearly 20 years of cryptography related work. These guys are all champions of the open-source movement. Cypherpunks that have collectively recognized that Bitcoin is their opportunity to show their work to the world. Your insistence on using the stupid "devs gonna dev" meme is a blatant offense at the core of Bitcoins' ethos. I sometimes wonder if you forget about the audience you are talking to. This very forum is full of devs creating the services YOU are using, without charging you a satoshi. All because of open source. Considering you are an ardent defender of Satoshi's blockchain, I propose you consider having some respects for devs, that have devved & came up with the technology that you use everyday and will make you filthy rich. As for these people, no they are not in the business of creating "speculative SCs". They are in fact hoping to build a decentralized environment of trust-less infrastructure that will support the Bitcoin economy and actually help strengthen its core. Sidechains are IMO *the* natural evolution of BTC. It is Bitcoin 2.0 done right. Now that does not mean that all other crypto 2.0 projects are irrelevant : I think federated models/oracles/voting pools and maybe colored coins will find their niche and be used most probably in majority by the corporate world to create whatever model of infrastructure that provides necessary control, oversight & transparency. Sidechains will likely support large scale open source infrastructure where the value exchanged might command a security model that should be considerably more decentralized. My bet is these open source platforms will be developed by Blockstream. These 20 millions are going to be used to develop Sidechains' dev kit. This kit might include platforms ("official" sidechains) that enable bootstrapping other secondary sidechains. Reid Hoffman has insisted that Blockstream at this stage is akin to the Mozilla Corporation. He has stressed prioritization of "public good over returns to investors." In that sense, you are right that SPVP is crucial to their success because it is the only way they can create these ambitious extensions of Bitcoin I'm sure they have in mind. I suspect they will leverage these open source platforms to then concentrate on consulting and developing secondary sidechains that serve corporations/governments interest. These will likely not be MM for reasons stated below, they are likely to use a different model. What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop. If you think they are going to be alone playing with these toys you are fooling yourself. None of this is proprietary. By its open source nature it will become part of the internet and will lay the foundation for hundreds, thousands of unimaginable innovations. SPVP, sidechains are a public good for everyone to use, Blockstream are the innovators leading the way. Yes there will be idiots who will try to abuse the system but they will be flushed out by honest, hardworking technologists that will build recognizagle, safe and useful applications for the world to use, preserve its value & grow the economy. Yes speculative instruments will be built but they will run on mathematically proven and secure reserve that does not inflate the value of its holder's wealth. Withstanding the obvious fluctuations of whatever market or asset he decides to invest in. Your suggestion that people are going to be throwing their money into half-assed scams that will sink the Bitcoin economy is asinine at best. If these sidechains are successful than logically so is Bitcoin because unlike what you twisted up logic leads you to think no one can sit at the table without having purchased its tickets. It matters little whether people decide to hold stocks, bond, insurance & contract because they are all trading in BTC. Someone has to pay for them, whether they decide to use them as bearer instrument for anything or as currency. No, people are *not* having a free pass by "siphoning" BTC through a sidechain. Unless they effectively steal them they will have to pay "cold hard cash" to claim them (BTC). Careful! Canada has NI 51-102. In the US its section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933. But when making such strong claims about the future you may want something like this somewhere in your public facing documentation: The above contains statements related to future business and financial performance and future events or developments involving Blockstream that may constitute forward-looking statements.
These statements may be identified by words such as "expect," "look forward to," "anticipate" "intend," "plan," "believe," "seek," "estimate," "will," "project" or words of similar meaning.
Blockstream may also make forward-looking statements in other reports, in presentations, in material delivered to shareholders and in press releases. In addition, Blockstream representatives may from time to time make oral forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on the current expectations and certain assumptions of Blockstream management, of which many are beyond Blockstream's control. These are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and factors. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying expectations not occur or assumptions prove incorrect, actual results, performance or achievements of Blockstream may (negatively or positively) vary materially from those described explicitly or implicitly in the relevant forward-looking statement. Blockstream neither intends, nor assumes any obligation, to update or revise these forward-looking statements in light of developments which differ from those anticipated.
I didn't see anyone is alleging actual impropriety, merely pointing out a conflict of interest due to the duties of care and trust which exists between the Blockstream employees to their investors, and to the constituent community of Bitcoin Core. It isn't the first time for such conflicts, it likely won't be the last. People will be watching how the conflict is managed and making decisions based on that. There are already some mechanisms in place for work review and commit review, and they might consider adding or some reviewers or looking at the process to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. It is probably a good thing you have nothing whatsoever to do with Blockstream because if you did, you would be a problem for them. |
|
|
|
The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.
True up to a point. After which it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Updated list of 900 shares: Chancellor Smooth - 300 shares (with the expectation of donating 100 to university holding) Dame Roopatra - 10 shares The Lord Baron Dr. Choo - 15 shares The Lord Baron Zechariah - 30 shares Lord James' right of first refusal still pending 300 shares (neither yet purchased nor refused) None yet have blackballed Master Jacket's 15 and time remains on this as well. As HM has noted, many expect these are an incredible bargain. A few short months remain before the closing of the open offering will be closed. They may be available to new promotions, and ultimately possibly on a secondary market... Subscription list
His Majesty is well aware that the land alone is worth more than the whole corporation according to this IPO. However, according to the original agreement, the Noble Palace is a place where even intrigue against His Majesty must be allowed, to have a safety valve for improper feelings. We must reaffirm our decline to participate this great project. - G12 was recently sold for 120 mil/q, F7 for 125/q, and you can see for yourself that they are not at the center of the map as A1 is. - Same is happening as with Grand Hotel, which is already trading 55% over IPO price, even after 10% dividends. - We must hurry with the department of Economics, so that the royal ranting may be moved there, and away from the thread  EDIT: Baron Zechariah will up his ante to 30 mil based on the recent information (above). |
|
|
|
it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post
a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.
Yes, we want a good medium of exchange. The more universal the better. We also want a good store of value, and unit of account. Basic stuff. Most of cypherdocs issues with SC are in the SoV area. |
|
|
|
Sorry to burst your ego but you are no more significant than a homeless person nor a housefly. We are all equal.
Excellently put. All of it. I'm just waiting for some idiot to come in and ask you how you have an internet connection while you're homeless, despite it being well established that nearly everyone today has access to a phone with a data plan In 1994 it was 50% of the world had access to a telephone. In 2014 it is 75% (but a smaller percentage if we limit it to those with data plans). We aren't yet at "nearly everyone", but we are at "most people". |
|
|
|
BTW, this is the DAILY TX volume. |
|
|
|
I am not a fan of Gavin's current Max Blocksize proposal.
I've been following your scalability proposal in the Technical Discussion section. You want to see the max block size adjusted based on blockchain feedback (closed loop), whereas Gavin proposes an open-loop solution. One risk with Gavin's solution is that it assumes historical growth rates for internet bandwidth will continue moving forward in time. One risk with your proposal is that it introduces another feedback term into what is surely a nonlinear system (right now the only feedback term is Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment). By the way, has anyone heard from DeathAndTaxes? I'd love to hear his view on both sidechains and scalability. me too. I've just checked his profile and his last login was on October 7th, last post on 29 of August... D&T is struggling with banks with his exchange type company, not surprising that he is pretty busy. On the MBS proposal topic. The solutions I suggest for the scalability issue based on the Max_blocksize is more a hybrid of the two. There are at least two problems with Gavin's proposal that are resolved very simply with mine. 1) What if the open-loop solution is too big and knocks lots of nodes off the network increasing centralization. 2) How do we know when the next time we need some central money planning decision authority to suggest a new target MAX_BLOCKSIZE? Simply stated: We use a factor of the recent blocksize with adjustment restrictions to prevent burst abuse conditions (TX spam, etc) -the closed loop, and use an upper limit of the exponential solution -the open loop. When they converge, then we know that it is time for whomever is the new consensus builder to propose something different (or to recognize that there is some other problem needing attention). What this does (among other things) is it avoids the potential condition where we have solved scalability in other ways (such as side chains or something else) and typical block sizes are still in the 1-2MB range (decades from now) and the network of that time is more or less built around this expectation, lots of hobbyists, and we have very good resilience. Then suddenly we get a bunch of 1GB blocks (because it is under the limit of the protocol) but folks aren't expecting it and we lose 7/8 of the nodes then running to this bandwidth attack. Our children will look back at us and think we were idiots for not preventing this sort of thing when we had the chance. Worse case scenario, it is only as bad as Gavin's proposal. Best case scenario, we have a more effective backstop to prevent protocol abuse and encourage node running. |
|
|
|
What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law".
Also, are we not assuming this sidechain is controlled by the government or else who exactly do this war time money go to? If so why should I trust government sidechain more than traditional government. They could just as easily change the rules after the fact.
And of course I would prefer to hold Bitcoin. I'm not the type of person who willingly fund war and consciously inflate the value of my holdings
By "made the law" it means it isn't voluntary. Usually this works through both moral suasion, and force. No one in your country will accept your bitcoin or else they may be called a traitor. People that you know have lost family members, your friends or your children are going off to fight to defend your home. The authorities have let it be known that this is the only way you and your way of life will survive, and if you lose the battle you will be killed or enslaved because you have the wrong type hair/eyes/language whatever. This sort of circumstance is the one regions typically find themselves in when there is a central bank scheme brewing up (or when one becomes abolished). By not trading in your bitcoin for gov.inflation.coin you won't be able to spend them, and if your government wins the war, you have to hope then never discover your deceit for the rest of your days. If they lose, and you survive, it is a different set of challenges. It is easy to say what one might or might not do when not in the circumstance, but this method has been very successful throughout history on both wars of aggression and of defense for establishing central banks. Paper money was innovated by the Huns... and so they conquered Asia. |
|
|
|
- they try to change Bitcoin. change it by changing the source code which breaks the Sound Money function. [...] that is what the spvp does, it creates an offramp into all manner of these assets.
So you're saying that a part of the real BTC is being chopped off and managed by a different source code base? The rules for the 1 million scBTC are different than for the original BTC? If so, I agree so far. What I don't understand: people will know this. scInflateBTCx2 has a public ledger and is run by miners using open source code. Why would anybody 'convert' 10 BTC to 10 scInflateBTCx2 knowing full well that scInflateBTCx2 runs a fractional reserve system and the guy with the other 10 scInflateBTCx2 will have his exchanged for 10 BTC half a microsecond later. There would be a continual run on the real BTC... it just wouldn't work, hence no BTC inflation.
Maybe someone can be so kind to help me understand by answering some of above questions or disputing my assertions?Thanks! I can't speak for Cypherdoc, (and also don't agree with all of his criticisms) but I'll take a crack at expounding a bit on this one. The different rules for the 1 million scBTC may be pretty much anything. They need not be in a public ledger or have open source code, but even if they do, you ask "Why would anybody 'convert' 10 BTC to 10 scInflateBTCx2 knowing full well that scInflateBTCx2 runs a fractional reserve system and the guy with the other 10 scInflateBTCx2 will have his exchanged for 10 BTC half a microsecond later?" Historically the reason has been war. This has been done many times over and over throughout history. If you look at the creation of almost any central bank scheme, it has almost always been done to finance a war, and to pay soldiers an inflating currency because sound money is scarce at such times. When there is conflict, folks are very willing to "go for broke". They have become convinced by TPTB that their life, and their way of life, and everything they care about will be lost of they don't accept the new scheme... and it is "illegal" not to do so, so they get put to death, imprisoned, called a traitor or whatever if they don't comply. If there is a geographical region that has a sound money system and a rule of law system, then the other geographical regimes that have only a rule of law system and have already pulled the con of paying their soldiers with inflation money have the military advantage. Their soldiers are willing to die for funny money and medals, and your soldiers aren't, so they can afford more of them. So... what has all this got to do with Side Chains? Not a lot, other than it is one mechanism that could be used to turn Bitcoin into "Military Government Inflation Coin" and require the use of that coin within a region by force of law, which of course the monetary authority could then inflate as needed and generate more as needed, diluting the bitcoin in the chain. The mechanism itself isn't the evil, it is just the tool. It can be used for good or "necessary" evils. |
|
|
|
From the Monero missive: Core: DNS checkpointing. This scans TXT records on the domains checkpoints.moneropulse.net/org/se/co every hour and, unless an enforce flag is set, notifies the user where checkpoints do not match. https://forum.monero.cc/1/news-and-announcements/47/monday-monero-missives-13-october-6th-2014I may be missing something, but this doesn't look decentralized to me. Unless you want to define decentralization as the ability to choose between being notified vs. automatical enforcement. It offers both. What you are looking at is a subsequent addition to make additional use of the innovation. The files are local, so miners can update using their own scheme, or they can use a centralized solution. Prior to this, it would take a recompile and code modification to accomplish this. Miners now have a simple way to do it themselves. |
|
|
|
he is probably waiting for the checkpoints to expire and then he will introduce his massive fork!
unless monero peeps keep adding time check-points ever week ....
First of all checkpoints do not "expire" and second, we have a DNS checkpointing system, adding a checkpoint is as easy as updating a DNS record for us, the clients update the checkpoints "on the fly", the system itself levarages DNSSEC for security. well yeah. i do not mean expire, expire. but out of range. unless the check point is made to check to validate short block range. say 100-1000. However this make them become a centralized solution. checkpoint are not the optimal solutions. they are there to give temporary strength while the real problem is fixed. then they should be removed or brought closer to few blocks. A few points: 1) This functionality you seek (the ability to continuously bring a checkpoint more current on a continuous and decentralized basis) is enabled by the innovation pioneered by the Monero development team. 2) Individual miners can do it themselves, easily, without requiring any central authority. 3) The threat of a chain reorganization is always present with any PoW coin that may be subjected to a 51% attack. 4) There was no "real problem" to fix. The problem was perception/FUD. But the dev team recognized an opportunity for an advancement that benefits all coins and implemented it swiftly so that others need never be subjected to this brand of FUD, ever again. |
|
|
|
Can a sidechain restrict the number of BTC converted to sidechainCOIN?
If they can be restricted, than value of scCOIN can grow but only be obtained via direct purchase and not btc conversion when the cap is hit. This removes value from the mainchain and will only be converted back to BTC if the scCOIN becomes less valuable than BTC again.
If it can’t be restricted then if the scCOIN value rises so does the value of BTC. Since anyone can use this extra value by converting BTC to it.
This should be true as far as both the mainchain and sidechain are representing value as a number. But what if the sidechain is more like a colored coin where an asset is represented by a token. I don’t know how that would affect the mainchain positively or negatively restricted or unrestricted.
All options are feasible, even ugly tokens not pegged to the SideChain that is used to convert them. All options including restricting the numbers of BTC able to be converted? That seems like a hard sell for miners to run that software if it can diminish the value of the mainchain. Thoughts? There are use cases for all sorts of options that seem really weird. They don't all break markets. For example this can be an on-chain fire marshal compliance: When you enter the room that has a maximum capacity of 1243 people according to fire codes, you get an indivisible token. Its redeemed when you leave. You then have an automated time-stamped compliance-assurance with the fire code. Hook in Age-coin and you know who can order alcohol without sloppy ink marks on the backs of hands... That same feature can also be used to create an artificial scarcity on a side chain for other purposes. There are millions of options, bajillions of use cases. The SC potential is incredibly vast, touches everything, and is completely mind-blowing in what it can do. If you think SC can't be the engine of Bitcoin mass adoption like nothing else, you don't grok side chains. If you think SC can't be the downfall of and lead to the end of Bitcoin, you don't grok side chains. |
|
|
|
In no way is the "Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage" broken. The coins aren't actually moved to the other chain, they are held on the mainchain like gold in a vault and a representation which is NOT BTC and can't be spent at coinbase for example, appears on the sidechain.
There is no way sidechains break the 21 million scarcity limit of real BTC. And anything that a sidechain could do to "dilute" the space (that is by creating a new token type) can be done with an altcoin today, and that has gotten nowhere. Any "betrayal" of the BTC "brand" that can be done with sidechains can equivalently be done much more easily (and with the same brand damage) with centralized solutions. We've seen it over and over again; Gox ponzi didn't kill BTC, and SCponzi won't either. But the risk of SCponzi will certainly make the mainchain the preferred place to hold and make large transfers. Sidechains will make Bitcoin the preferred long term store of value, because tremendous utility is just a chain transfer away.
And how is Gox going to go Ponzi when the GoxBTC and GoxUSD on its sidechain must match the BTC "locked" on the mainchain and the USD in their bank accounts (which can be audited)?
If a multi-token sidechain is created with scBTC and inflata-Coin-to-make-devs-rich, what do you think people will do? Probably not even touch the sidechain. But assuming they do, they will hold the scBTC and when they need to "use" the sidechain features the require inflata-coin, they'll buy the inflata-coin moments before spending it.
But without sidechains you really do risk a new token that comes along and takes massive market share. We as a society are not ready to put stocks, mortgages, etc on a blockchain (because why have the risk of a new tech coupled with the return of an old stock). But someday we WILL be. And when we are, what's going to be the preferred payment? Old stodgy BTC that you have to sign up for exchanges, do AML, etc to access real markets, or tradecoin which can be tranformed into GOOG 5 seconds after receipt? There's a REASON gold shot up when ETFs appeared -- its called access to markets.
What about the IOT (internet of things) token? 20 years from now, items in your house might be doing 500 txns per day for a total of < $5 automatically on your behalf... Sidechains allow BTC to scale beyond our wildest dreams to applications we can't even consider.
You are like the guy who said there's only use for 5 computers in the world.
You should instead consider that the biggest risk to BTC right now is the sidechain-altcoin that Blockstream so "kindly" offered to build instead of integrating these technologies directly into BTC. That altcoin has the potential to leave BTC in the backwaters of digital currencies (except that I believe in the core devs in Blockstream to move the tech over).
Ok, that's probably the end of my rant... but my subsequent silence does not mean that you are right :-). Honestly, I miss the great insights you guys (and mostly cypherdoc) provide about the larger world economic picture on this thread and hope that we can eventually get back to it! But I'll tell you this; I'm a technologist and I've skipped from one newly breaking technology to the next for my entire career in startups; gaming, telecom in 1995-2000, storage, wireless, OSHW, bitcoin. I'm telling you if sidechains CAN be done (honestly I haven't really verified the gory details of the automated 2-way peg myself) they WILL eventually be the dominant coin. I proposed them in early 2012 (the concept not the mechanism)... but don't worry to much, BTC will not die; it'll be the Rolls Royce with a valuation above what we have today, while the sidechain-enabled coin takes 99% of the market.
EDIT: tl;dr. Bitcoin is the zerg. It will take over everything thru sidechains.
That's a really persuasive argument from someone I respect. The other way to question this though is that somehow btc units are fed through the peg and through some magic stocks, bonds , smart contracts, altcoins, etc come out the other side and somehow this is not inflationary? What if it just breaks the entire system? This, along with Cypherdoc's question pretty much sums up where I am too. In order to make Bitcoin what it promises to be we do need to chase away the hubris, and look at the real problems. When identified, they can be monitored and worked. If there are ways our advancements can be used against us, we need to know them. We should expect that those that would see the Bitcoin experiment fail, will attempt this. tl;dr When you can see no evil, you are the evil. |
|
|
|
Sure the free market will govern most options, not all will be successful, I am skeptical mainly because of the lack of attention to the downside risks.
That is where I am at also, trying to understand the downsides and risks. What the cheerleaders miss is that by continuing to ignore the downsides and risks, or to claim that they do not exist, or to suggest that they are unimportant because the upside is so huge....the message is that any problems will not be solved. Most of us understand the incredible potential of the offering. However if this thread were any indication...there is very little confidence that there are any adults in the room with them, shepherding this development effort to that potential success by looking out for the pitfalls. |
|
|
|
Be it known throughout the lands: The plans are completed For the Noble Palace and we can engage construction immediately. They are available for public viewing at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16Hu2qsR0KMPlbiOq9Pu5EXHuSZ50IisbbNYhKLcNwlE/edit#gid=1865007466Shares are available to all nobility for purchasing now, or upon being granted noble title in the future as described by HM's Royal Decree that follows this announcement. BE IT KNOWN: Share ownership in addition to providing a share of revenues additionally allows for you and any guests you may invite to be seated at the exclusive fine dining establishment within, as well as to partake of the extensive concierge services to provide with any of the more exotic requests that may accompany your stature and esoteric tastes. Even the smallest rooms are more than sufficient for temporary residence for some levels of nobility and by combining rooms even the highest levels of nobility may choose to take up permanent residence within. The building restrictions are strictly adhered to, and at a luxury rate of 190% it is second only to HM's own living arrangements and so would be suitable for foreign royalty to attend ceremonies or on visits seeking His Majesties favours. For this year only the founders IPO rate of share purchases may be made at 1 million moneritos each, 900 shares available total.Chancellor Smooth and Lord James each have rights of first refusal for 300 shares each, and 300 for the Marquess. This grand edifice provides some 1476 sqm of living spaces and all included uses 843500 stone, 360,898,600m in labor 324,890,000 in imports We are aware of no finer project available in all the land and all nobility are urged to take advantage of this one time opportunity else be relegated to purchasing shares in the aftermarket. Royal Proclamation concerning the lot 1-C-A1, the proposed Noble Palace and King's Patience regarding its mattersWe, rpietila, the King over all CryptoKingdom, Duke of the Very Ancient Duchy, Earl in more places than cares to be mentioned, Mayor of CryptoTown, CEO of the Most Ancient and Worshipful Town Hall Corporation and CEO of Grand Hotel Corporation, blessed with skills in business management and beaux arts, but hardly communication, etc., greet The Marquess Joseph of New Liberty, Eldest of the Nobles, AOK-K, MG-5, GJB, FBB, TB, CB, etc. We congratulate you for your kind and just heart in your dealings with fellow citizens, and as Mayor and on behalf of the Town, extend our most grateful thanks for the transfer of 1-S-N2 to the Public ownership - against a token 100 mil expression of gratitude from the Town part - for the construction of the Office annex of the Town Hall (the most ancient, esteemed). And for your concern of the defence, resulting in the provision of a whole company of soldiers. Now, the Most Ancient Corporation of the Noble Palace Club has been established 12 years ago, yet is not chartered yet. Yes, we know that the Royal Palace took 12 years to build from breaking ground to the golden roof, the Town Hall was designed for 12 years before construction, and the Cathedral was locked for 12 years after it was finished, before the inauguration. Great building works take great time. Still: the invaluable land of 1-C-A1, granted for "building grand and beautiful commercial buildings" lays undeveloped. Our royal patience can not take much longer to see this land unused, therefore we speed up the construction with the following edict: The Noble Palace Club has 10 years to submit the charter and shareholder registry for evaluation. The building to be constructed on A-1 also needs to be able to be built in 1476 the latest. It must feature the following: - All the facilities for the Nobles to perform receptions and festivities - It may be 20 m high on towertops, but in consideration that the Grand Hotel in the opposite side of the square, which despite of the relief of its facade (or because of it - the facade features 4 pilasters 2 m wide and 18 m high), is too cubic and monumental to really fit on our tender town square in its present form (I mean the form of the square, the form of the hotel will not be changed obv.), we require your architects to consider a roofline of 17-18 m at max. The Cathedral tower of 17 m limits the construction near it to 16 m or less (such as the Town Hall and the coming Realtor's Hotel in G12). Also please observe the lane that has come to the north, cutting your buildable area. The old city wall between your hotel and the jousting ground you may tear down if you wish. Its wartime value is pretty much negative by now; the unhindered views from the Noble Palace to the jousting ground are more important if actual street defence must be resorted to. - I am sure we understand that 180-190% luxury level is adequate, for His Majesty has plans to build an even greater palace than Malla when new boroughs are opened - should it happen in the Ancient era of course - with up to 300% luxury. (Malla has felt small with its 1,300 sqm compared to the opulence of the Grand Hotel with its 1,600 sqm right next to my royal dwelling  .) When these plans come to fruition, the subjects of our rule are allowed and expected to glorify themselves more greatly as well. - The Palace shall be in ownership of all the Nobility. Everyone is not equal, though. We fully appreciate that the early adopters who have carried the highest burden in design, can take the sweetest shares of the pie for themselves. But as for the perpetual ownership structure, please esteem our view that every member of landed nobility (Earl and higher) at minimum, preferably town nobles (Barons) also, even the junior nobles (Knight/Jungherr) if you wish, should be able to buy their share(s) of the Noble Palace Club, and its emission would therefore perpetually increase. This would allow for new buildings and activities also increase along with the membership. We do not want to write too much in a way of micromanagement, but what we consider functional, is that once the founders have bought their share, every Baron would be given the chance to buy 1 unit, Earl 2 units, Marquess 4 units, and so on (calculate the size of unit according to your capital requirement). The unit would be the share and receive weekly dividends if the building has income and no expansion needs are deemed pressing. If your noblenesses do not abhor being in debt, we the King can grant 200 millions for 0.6% (200->260 in 25 days). With these terms we also gave loan to the rock-solid Grand Hotel Corp. (who are using the loan to build subsidized dwellings for their employees in their haw, and for speculation with gold, hmm.. let's see). We are not indignant if the offer is rejected or undercut by the members of nobility, though. As a final exhortation, we will soon (~12 years) need one more Councillor in the Town Council. Bishop is supporting some commoner to be included for all-inclusiveness. Our problem is that we promote all good commoners to Nobility at the earliest opportunity... Please consider. When greeting Lord smooth, forward my continuing gratitude for his becoming the Chancellor of the University. Earldom is not far away now.. We just need to have the architects/building inspectors educated to release even greater growth in the city, where he also offers his kind assistance. Yours truly, |
|
|
|
an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.
there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world. it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable. none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time. and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.
by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?
There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains". The GLD ETF derives its value from gold. Egold once derived its value from gold. In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain". Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold. These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed. Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain. Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin. the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though. i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC. Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin. Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives this is new, in Bitcoin land, to use 100% of your mining power you had to forfeit 100% of your income and pay for the energy needed to be a malicious miner, in the post SC BTC world you can use 100% of your mining power and attack the network, while still earning tx fees on other chains, these kind of speculative attacks was not possible before, its just labour and gold rigging, on the protocol level. its will always be profitable. Hmm... It seems that in later years (with smaller coinbase TX block rewards) under the scenario of a very successful MM SC, the miner may be 51% the MC and mining the SC profitably without significant opportunity costs. Since SPV is a soft fork, they could be 51%ing MC without supporting SPV on the MC and maliciously unlocking BTC from the SC. |
|
|
|
Its sad but true that I think OT never really took off because it couldn't be used as a get rich scheme or P&D  The OT client for grandma offered what a 500btc bounty or something crazy? But noone ever did it and I don't think those bounty awarders are still around to offer that kinda money for the nice client... otherwise I'd prob take a stab at it. i think its going strong, its the best solution not a failed one. The reason you're not hearing much about OT is that Monetas is spending a lot of time working on voting pools, which are a hard problem to solve and also a backend technology. When exchanges start using voting pools to handle customer deposits, there will be a great many OT users who won't even realize they're using it. That's right... I had almost forgot you are quite invested in a technology that is directly endangered by sidechains. Your quick drivebys are more easily explained now. I'd say you should not worry so much and embrace sidechains. It looks to me like OT is one kind of federated model which will find its place for certain use cases. I don't think SCs endanger OT. OT can work just fine with Side Chains as well. |
|
|
|
bang on. also explains the long bull market, metaphorically, VC,s will get to a stage like early mining, at some point its better to invest in BTC than it is to try and make earn it.
the idea isn't to disrupt the economy, its to disrupt the financial system used to run the economy.
Bitcoin is a risk distribution virus, more powerful than any biological weapon, it assimilates and leave a working economy in its wake, all we have to do is protect the DNA that makes it work, punting economic energy into Bitcoin is how it grows.
VCs will never resort to solely buying BTC. This is an asinine proposition which defeats the whole purpose of their existence. Tim Draper would be surprised to learn this. http://www.coindesk.com/tim-draper-revealed-silk-road-bitcoin-auction-winner/Would you like me to list the Bitcoin companies in which Draper is invested? The keyword here is solely. The Draper example is even more stupid in itself considering he has said these Bitcoins will be used to bootstrap liquidity into Vaurum/Mirror. You are better than that.... Why not simply "define away" the existence of VCs that solely buy BTC by just not including them in your definition of VC... or that they aren't VC until they also create a Bitcoin company even though they bought BTC before creating such a company? Its tautological that way, and you can avoid not knowing about the VCs that have just bought BTC and don't have any Bitcoin company planned. Otherwise a single example invalidates your claim that it "never" happens. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
