|
The longer you take to call the cops and the more you post about it here, the less credibility your story has. FYI, in many countries, false accusations are a crime.
|
|
|
|
Pics or it never happened.  |
|
|
|
Looks like we're back into a rule of thirds cycle. We should rally strongly to 366 USD and the lucky CNY 2222.
I have 10 waiting to sell at $350. You dare me to pull it and put them at $365. Will you give me the $150 if you're wrong  What's in it for me? i'll give you $1.50 if you're right Better yet, why don't you just sell your bitcoins now then you can gloat if you are right. |
|
|
|
Looks like we're back into a rule of thirds cycle. We should rally strongly to 366 USD and the lucky CNY 2222.
I have 10 waiting to sell at $350. You dare me to pull it and put them at $365. Will you give me the $150 if you're wrong What's in it for me? |
|
|
|
|
Looks like we're back into a rule of thirds cycle. We should rally strongly to 366 USD and the lucky CNY 2222.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, yeah the death of the dollar is right around the corner
the 30th year in a row.
You mean the former reserve currency being replaced by RMB? |
|
|
|
Good morning (afternoon?) Bitcoinland. Same price as yesterday I see. Guess I'd better go down the street and buy another coin or two. But first, mmmmmm coffee, mocha-java, full city roast.   |
|
|
|
If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here.
cracking open cold wallets to move to a SC would open up all sorts of risks. While I recognise the possibility of a SC taking away all the miners, the miners would no longer be able to verify their chains based on Bitcoin. They could attack each other. Catch-22. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications. When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow.
until that point in time, we need every miner on board the MC pushing the hashrate. i view the mining community as a speeding train trying to stay just ahead of a 51% attack that's on its heels. there's an equilibrium there that will be disturbed by SC's, imo. Ach! You guys are like hamsters on a wheel. Both ah yuz! It was clear to me when I thought about mining (2011-ish) that mining will always reach unprofitabilty (so it's just better to buy BTC if one wants to make a dime considering the risks and hassle.) I bought one 'rig'. It was the first batch of USB ASICS available in the U.S. as a collector's item. I had no intention of powering it up and never did. The point is that if one is basing their conception of economics in Bitcoinland on hashing, one is falling into the same trap as debt-based monetary solutions do with interest. The monster chasing you is empowered by the very energy you spend trying to escape him. This could spell doom for Bitcoin which has provoked an amazing amount of sha256 power already (which could turn against it), is wildly volatile, and is a significant threat to powerful interests. I see sidechains as the most likely solution to this problem. Just as a heard of ungulates can break up when attacked by a cheetah, run in multiple directions, then re-group when the danger is passed, sidechains can do the same. Just as the herd survives (absent a weakling) so can distributed crypto-currencies. If Bitcoin can remain the foundation (the grasslands) which form the playing field, fantastic. If not, something else probably will. Again, blindly trying to grow hashing power in order to preserve the grasslands is doomed to failure as a strategy in my opinion. Some alternate method of preserving them is really the only hope. Are ASICs considered cutting edge technology? When someone designs a breakthrough miner that makes ASIC look like an abacus, then a 99% attack will be cheap. Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.
If it's 1:1 then the end of Bitcoin is fine. More adoption is good. No problems here. |
|
|
|
I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.
I'm not worried about them per se, and we don't really need them to have every chain... The concern for small miners is a different one, and is based in a component of security, resilience. Mining is the incentive to run a full node (which is otherwise uncompensated). So centralization by smaller miners disappearing reduces resilience. So to the extent that the hobbyist level miners disappear entirely and are not replaced 1:1 with larger miners' nodes, we lose some security. Bitcoin isn't even close to having enough hashrate by several orders of magnitude. We need many billions invested in development of mining hardware and applications. When it gets to that level, then it will begin to pique the interest of real investment. In other words if one big company decides to invest, then others will follow. |
|
|
|
|
Speaking of big leagues. I can't wait to hear the complaining from KNC when TI, Motorola, or Sony etc. decide to get into the Bitcoin mining biz.
|
|
|
|
MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.
I'm not seeing that. 4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper. p 13 As miners provide work for more blockchains, more resources are needed to track and validate
them all. Miners that provide work for a subset of blockchains are compensated less than those
which provide work for every possible blockchain. Smaller-scale miners may be unable to afford
350
the full costs to mine every blockchain, and could thus be put at a disadvantage compared to larger,
established miners who are able to claim greater compensation from a larger set of blockchains.I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math. |
|
|
|
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). Yes, they are real SC transactions on the SC blockchain (or whatever security measure they use), but Bitcoin users don't see them on the bitcoin blockchain. The White Paper warns against using MM. In fact, scrypt ASIC miners might be tapped for SC security instead of SHA miners. Again your concerns seem to be about transaction revenue for Bitcoin miners. They can always reduce their fees and make the revenue up in volume by competing with the SCs. But then they have a bloated blockchain. Don't you think that SCs won't have the same problem? They may end up with bloated SC block chains and won't even have the benefit of a block subsidy. |
|
|
|
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.
If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions. If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions. In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely. Why do you think that exchanging BTC for pegged, reversible, and insured scBTC does not improve Bitcoin scalability. You are exchanging trust for convenience. Unless you write all your own Bitcoin code, then you are already willing to trust someone else to manage your bitcoins. In this case, the SCs are apps that manage bitcoin transactions more conveniently for the cost of a little trust. If they lose your trust, you can always get some of your bitcoins back. The concept of pegged side chains is similar to lite clients. If you no longer trust them, you can sweep your keys to a full client. |
|
|
|
MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.
I'm not seeing that. 4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper. |
|
|
|
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains? Sure if you ensure that dynamic. But why would anyone do their tx's on Mc if they can do them better on SC? They don't necessarily do them better. They have risk, but as minimal risk as possible. If they do in fact end up doing them better, then the MC will need to be improved. The SCs just buy time and take all the risk. |
|
|
|
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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains? |
|
|
|
Now we introduce the concept of time-preference. For security reasons (rather similar to coinbase maturity which sees you unable to spend freshly mined coins for 100 blocks) the algorithmic peg has a time-delay.
Now if you planned to hold anyway for that period or longer, then you dont care and the situation is unchanged.
But if you want to do a sidechain BTC transaction faster, you swap it for a small premium with someone who already has BTC on the sidechain and is planning to long term hold, or swap with someone trying to go the other direction. What you pay them will be small due to the mechanics of arbitrage. They'll just look for some small fee because to them if they're already long term BTC holders its basically free money, like interest on BTC to move funds back and forth and provide liquidity service for sidechains. The $ exchange rate is immaterial, the best candidate for sidechain liquidity provider is someone who is anyway holding their own or other peoples BTC for long term storage.
Anyone who tried to sell BTC on one chain for a lower than time-preference cost on another chain would just lose money.
The longer the time-preference, the bigger the possible spread because of the increased risk of volatility over time. Your SC can offer varied time-preference risk for fee rates desired by different trading strategies. Like Certificates of Deposit offering different interest rates depending on deposit length. |
|
|
|
Bankers calling the Winklevii boring.  From what I've seen, they don't seem to be very well spoken. Those weren't bankers making the Twitter comments. Those were innovators in the electronic payments and cashless society -- entrepreneurs getting their lunch eaten up by Apple Pay. Like I said, bankers. Right up there with spies, rap stars, and jet pilots. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
