Are you aware of the San Marcos bitcoin meetup, and the San Antonio meetup? they combined groups and meet once a month in New Braunfels - perhaps we could go in the same direction and get a meetup going in Buda/kyle
would actually be pretty awesome if we could organize a circuit of meetups which goes between new braunfels, san marcos, and kyle to help better facilitate the San Antonio and Austin regions.
I would love to host the San Marcos round at the SpaceLab! The Bitcoin meetup in Austin works closely with other Bitcoin meetup groups in Texas, and conduct joint Hangouts on Air to bring in remote speakers: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZTnjU-KAiuZl7g-dNHUyUg/playlistsWe are not affiliated with Paul Snow's altcoin meetup in any way, nor his upcoming conference. For more details about that: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2jvrmf/tuseday_austin_bitcoin_meetup/clgj22p |
|
|
|
i'm confused about this. i've heard different stories from, "it's not possible to lose your scBTC to a SC failure b/c you can always access the peg back to BTC" versus "you'll lose everything". then this from LukeJr:
[–]Freemanix 2 points 7 hours ago
What if the child chain is defunct/abandoned? How can I return my funds back onto parent chain?
permalink
save
parent
report
give gold
reply
[–]luke-jr [-6] 3 points 7 hours ago
Mining it yourself? There's potentially ways to do a unilateral transfer, but that's something beyond simple sidechains for now.
wtf? |
|
|
|
you start with that and you end up with what we have today, because then you keep adding, for example education, health care.... the systems that we have today didnt just appear in one night, they are the outcome of development of centuries.
Yes, I also agree about changing some corrupt governments and improving things, but I don't think a free libertarian state is any kind of a help, in fact I think it will just make things worst.
You're exactly right. The US empire is the direct result of minarchism. Cancer treatments has to kill every single cancerous cell, because if even one cell remains it will form a new tumor. The only solution is to give up on the addition to the state entirely. Cold turkey. This has happened before - slavery was a near-universal human institution right up until it was rejected for moral reasons. Then we learned how to live without it. |
|
|
|
this is why states and borders exist, and some kind of enforced regulation has to exist so people can live with each other. Here's the problem - you're confusing yourself for humanity. That's called projection. Maybe you need enforced regulations in order to get along with other people. If so, that's a personal problem you should discuss with a competent psychotherapist. |
|
|
|
Laws, regulations, and a mechanism to enforce both are "the fruits of civilized society." Voluntary free association creates civilization and all it's benefits. Those benefits are so great that civilization can survive (for a short time) even under the predation of institutionalized violence. In the end, however, the parasite always grows until it destroys the host civilization. |
|
|
|
That's essentially identical to the frequent argument that deflationary currencies can't work because no one will spend them (or, in his words, it rebukes sellers). Both are wrong. Your statement is only true if we don't care about reality. Or truth. Both of these theories have been empirically tested, and only one of them demonstrated to be true. |
|
|
|
One example does not prove this at all. It simply proved that no one wanted Freicoin. They might want something else with that property, but with some other differences. I have to agree with Daniel on this one. He proved fairly rigorously why demurrage-based currencies must fail, and nobody has produced a refutation stronger than, "Maybe if I hope hard enough it will work!!!" http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/08/22/the-problem-with-altcoins/Freicoin is an idea whose time will never come. Since it rebukes buyers, it resists ever having value. Freicoin is thus not so much a scam but more an abortion. Its ideals are so refined that they eschew the merest chance of affecting the real world. Perhaps it could be taken as some sort of absurdist parody, which would be brilliant. I hope that is true because otherwise it is just too sad. |
|
|
|
If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?
Some altcoins are more equal than others. It's kind of embarrassing that certain people keep clinging to the idea of demurrage, in spite of the fact that Freicoin conclusively proved that nobody wants self-destructing money. |
|
|
|
"Name and shame"? Why are so many Bitcoiners eager to throw away the fruits of civilized society and take us back to the dark ages? Very clever - you structured your post in a way that implies the people who want to out scammers to limit the damage they can do are "throwing away the fruits of civilized society" without actually lying. |
|
|
|
Two thoughts:
What would Satoshi think of sidechains?
(Hint: I suspect he likes them ... )
What if someone(s) involved with Blockstream is Satoshi?
Now it is all out in the open, like the source code, which for sidechains, does not even exist yet.
Why would this make any difference? He'd need to prove his case to, just like everybody else. |
|
|
|
Wasn't the main purpose of LTC to extend the life of GPU miners after the advent of SHA256 FPGAs and ASICs? No no no - the original main purpose of Litecoin was to extend the life of CPU miners - to protect them from the barbarian hordes of GPU miners. |
|
|
|
Do not spin my words around.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to well respected members of the community is NOT blind trust. It is called exactly that, respect.
It is perfectly fine to consider what COULD go wrong. It is another thing to imply conspiration to damage Bitcoin when there is NO signs and incentives of doing so.
If we're not going to spin words around, then please start by not spinning mine. I observed a potential problem, and I give a set of conditions which would reduce or eliminate my concerns: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhp60y?context=3Note that I haven't heard anyone say that the conditions I put forward are unreasonable. This isn't "implying conspiracy." |
|
|
|
trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past. I hear alarm bells whenever people start talking like this. The people who communities blindly trust because "they've always served us in the past" are exactly the kind of people who become prime targets for blackmail, extortion, etc. Giving people a blank check because we like them or because they've done good work previously is precisely the wrong thing to do. Making sure that Blockstream is set up in a way that doesn't create perverse incentives is as much for their protection as ours. |
|
|
|
Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.
That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing? Ideally at this point whatever feature made the sidechain successful would get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol. But the issuers and holders of the sidechain might complain and try to stop that from happening. |
|
|
|
EBMF
Eat Beef Mother Fucker!
The end of the month is coming. Given that my goal is to get paid as many bitcoins as possible, I always welcome a lower exchange rate at the end of the month. |
|
|
|
At Coinsummit, Marc Andreesen & Balaji Srinivasan were discussing the idea of creating a Red Hat for Bitcoin, I think Blockstream could achieve this.
A "Red Hat for Bitcoin" headquartered in the US would be a disaster. |
|
|
|
I liked this response from Greg: I'd like to see more of that too... Some people in the Bitcoin ecosystem push on ideas like red-listing which I think are very fundamentally anti-bitcoin, and every time that kind of stuff comes up I become ill thinking about all the political work that goes into protecting bitcoin as an autonomous trustless system.
Part of what I want (pegged) sidechains to exist and be successful is so that I can spend less time telling people NO and more time telling them "Good Luck with that", without having to also be telling them to create something that competes with the bitcoin currency.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhphi2I also like his responds and Adam Back's. Now I can consider my original question, "provisionally answered." |
|
|
|
I like the Conformal model.
They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.
I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
Also Kraken, they do libcoin. It's basically a somewhat refactored Satoshi client, though, not a complete rewrite. Alternate implementations don't really count unless they are capable of mining, and also used for mining. btcd meets the first requirement, although AFAIK has not achieved the second (yet). There are probably many projects which could achieve both goalposts with a bit more development, but have so far been discouraged from trying. |
|
|
|
Is that dear NotPorkChops? I don't know what to believe any more...  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
