odd. We broke that wall at around $350 and now we heading back up?
it's hard to tell dn sᴉ ʎɐʍ ɥɔᴉɥʍ ?!?!? |
|
|
|
The Blockstream team has made it CLEAR they have NO interest into alternative currencies built on a sidechain. This is absolutely not their vision of sidechain and it is explained repeatedly in the white paper. Adam Back
sidechains are a generic extension mechanism. we hope many people make use of the sidechain extension mechanism to add innovative new features centered around the bitcoin currency. from the White Paper Appendix C Atomic swaps
Once a sidechain is operational, it is possible for users to exchange coins atomically between chains,
without using the peg. It sounds like altcoins to me. |
|
|
|
|
Schisms. This is why there can be only one Bitcoin Temple. Otherwise there's gods everywhere.
|
|
|
|
...
What if the exchange function specified that after time/block N, the exchange rate is 1 BTC = 0 Micros ? No more arb.
Not to be pedantic, but the point is that the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". Seems to me that there are probably many classes of deterministic functions which could prevent value from moving back to bitcoin.
Then I suppose bitcoin would be lost, only affecting users of the side chain. Arb could still be done with micros that hadn't matured. As long as the exchange rate is deterministic and not stochastic. Not sure I follow. If there's no way to move bitcoin to the sidechain, the arb channel is closed, and bitcoin cannot benefit from increased purchasing power of the sidecoin. This is only relevant after all the sidecoins have been created/unlocked/whatever. Is that what you mean by "matured"? Maybe I should have said expire. So you are saying the exchange rate can cease to exist after a certain time/block N for the entire side chain? Or, once you convert a coin, that coin cannot be exchanged back after a certain time/block N? The former: After time N for the whole chain, global exchange rate goes to 1 BTC = 0 Sidecoin. I see nothing preventing the exchange rate function from being able to be specified this way. Then the sidechain would effectively become a separate chain... an altcoin. I guess this is a question for the devs. Of course not. They can force a two-way peg through regulation. /s |
|
|
|
|
It's human nature to have doubts. Nothing has changed in the Bitcoin protocol, yet developers are espousing creating altcoins under the new moniker of "sidechains." It's all because of the fear of sustainable competition. What happens when one of these sidechains becomes bigger than Bitcoin? When I eventually read the side chain white paper, I will see the same fallacious arguments proposed in all the other altcoin papers. "Bitcoin mining will destroy the environment! Therefore Bitcoin must (Proof of) Burn!" Are we creating our own Season of the Witch here?
|
|
|
|
|
"If Bitcoin is to remain decentralized, it must have larger blocks."
Of course we need bigger blocks. Some people still think scrypt is a good idea in that bigger memory requirements improve decentralization. Bigger is better. Why can't this "scrypt mentality" work for block size too? If the blocks are bigger, then Bitcoin will be more decentralized. It's the same argument for Litecoin, except on a different scale. With Litecoin the notion was that the CPU would dominate mining because it would be unaffordable to develop ASICs to handle the memory requirements. With block size doubling it is believed it will be unaffordable for people to transmit and store the blockchain. This example uses contradictory notions about size to make the point that size doesn't matter. This is not a cryptology (or philosophy) problem, it is an engineering problem. "Scotty, get me Warp Nine!"
|
|
|
|
Cheap coins on sale now. Mr Bearwhale has made a generous donation.  |
|
|
|
|
I think speculators are guessing that an altcoin will replace Bitcoin or that Bitcoin 2.0 derivatives will make Bitcoin unnecessary as a store of value. They will see the error in their presumptions.
|
|
|
|
Well, if you don't want folks to fall for this 'bad' investment and sully the coin and possibly ruin their lives and time and frustrations. Then you agree the mining reward should be abolished. Fix the problem.  Then lets get rid of those pesky transaction fees too. That's stealing. Nobody should need to actually work for what they receive. All means of earning should be abolished for the good of mankind. Edit: on a more serious note, if you abolish the reward you abolish coin generation and abolish the coin altogether. So what you really want is to abolish Bitcoin. This |
|
|
|
So who can explain how Bitshares or Counterparty is going to issue shares on the Blockchain?
Will a company issuing 1M shares attach these permanently to 1M Satoshi's? How does the market trade an independent value for the shares if a Satoshi goes to $100 per or if a tx free goes to $100 per?
For one thing if a Satoshi goes to $100 per, then it's certain the decimal point will be moved another eight places to the right long beforehand and your shares can be re-issued. |
|
|
|
 They'll make these guys look poor. |
|
|
|
don't worry, the future belongs to me and not because Bitcoin will be in it....
If that is indeed the case, why exactly are you spending your time here, on a Bitcoin forum? Surely, if Bitcoin is destined to end up in the dustbin of history you could find more productive things to do with your time? I wonder what mechanism could make it profitable for you to spend your (presumably) valuable time on the enthusiast forum of a doomed technology? This. But I guess we have Billionaires trolling bitcointalk lol They prolly got promoted from the call center. |
|
|
|
My tough is that if someone wanted to make a legit coin they would use some other name. That's all.
Yeah, legitcoin. Sounds legit. |
|
|
|
|
There are scams in every unregulated industry. If you are scammed, then sue. QED. Don't blame it on Bitcoin. Like any business, some are good at it and make money while some don't. That's just business. Plenty of miners do make profits of they would be turning off their miners.
/thread
|
|
|
|
Those transactions pay fees. You think people just move money around for no reason? If you don't like the metric, then claim that it needs to be weighted, not discounted. I would conservatively guess transaction volume about 20% as actual transactions because businesses report actual sales in bitcoins.
Currently, transaction fees are negligible (~13 BTC total per day; on average, less than 0.08 USD per transaction, or less than 0.01% of the BTC volume excluding change-backs). For many kinds of non-payment transactions (tumbling, moving between hot and cold wallets, depositing and withdrawing from exchanges and other "bitcoin banks", over-the counter bitcoin purchases, etc.) those fees are not a deterrent. And fees are not yet mandatory, is that correct? Moreover, there are many people (such as fund employees) with motivation to generate "fake" traffic in order to give the impression of usage. My guess is that payments for goods and services are no more than 5% of the blockchain transaction volume. The justification is that the latter does not vary with BTC price as one would expect. If that is the case, then one cannot use the traffic as a measure of adoption, even with a 0.05 weight, because the proportion of payment to non-payment traffic may vary a lot. I'll concede the uselessness of Metcalfe's Law as a predictor, that is for academic discussion. I don't believe Metcalfe's Law even applies to Bitcoin, because it is not a network. It doesn't need a lot of nodes, only a lot of decentralized miners. You call yourself an academic, yet you do nothing but criticize and offer nothing constructive. Your criticisms are weak and add little to the discussion. If you can't contribute something constructive, then you aren't putting in much effort and are resting on your laurels. |
|
|
|
eh there at least 3~5 orders of magnitude left for btc to grow into
3 orders of magnitude is 1000. So if BTC is $400 today it will be worth $400 000 a coin then. Five orders is 100000, so btc will be worth $40,000,000 a coin. Forty million a coin!!! I will be rich with my tenth of a BTC coin holdings! Some people think that is rich and some don't. Some people are not happy without many billions. Someday it will be trillions. Besides, he said 3-5, not absolutely 5. In today's money, 400k a btc --that's three orders of magnitude--is rich by anybody's definition.  Not to them. Besides, with 400k per bitcoin that's only about 5,000,000,000,000 market cap. The Federal Reserve lost and can't account for 3 times that much and nobody cares. That's just not much money. |
|
|
|
|
Whatever the market will allow.
|
|
|
|
|
When people realize that much of their gold portfolio is tungsten, fractional reserve, or stolen, then they will see that Bitcoin is 100% verifiably genuine.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
