listen to this bullshit Karen Gifford of Ripple Labs spews forth to the Calif Assembly @14:00. Chris Larson also says he doesn't believe we need a new currency: https://clyp.it/zdpzphmdRipple is the enemy. Does David Schwartz still hangs out on this forum? The last time I talked to him was at the 2013 San Jose conference. I wonder if he knew back then he was going to sell out. he was manning the Ripple booth at the time. |
|
|
|
that's not at all what is happening. BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange. all the trading is just on its own internal DB. when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.
BTC deposited on an sidechain are parked in an address owned by the sidechain, all the trading is just on its own public side-blockchain. when an owner wants to withdraw from the sidechain, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain. You're neglecting the friction I mentioned above. Also, when mtgox blows up, "someone" has those coin. When a SC blows, those coins will be gone. Let me also introduce another concept that represents my assessment of what will occur. Miners will not support SC's because ultimately SC's will be an unknown risk to their business model. They won't support that uncertainty. That's just my opinion. You can withdraw from mtGox only if Karpeles allow it. You can withdraw from SC if you can create proof that you own pKey in SC. It is human's will vs proof of math. SC does not need a lot of miners. SC can timestamp transactions(whole side-blockchain) in bitcoin blockchain. (Same as CP does) SC's require ideally 100% of current Bitcoin miners to MM to equal the security of the MC itself. anything less represents a security vulnerability. SC's are also based on POW (at least the spvp model is which is what i'm talking about) the "proof of lock" needed to exit the SC requires that it be mined and presented back to the spvp. if the SC is being 51% attacked, then this won't happen and your scBTC will be stuck on the SC and therefore your locked up BTC on the MC will never be unlocked. |
|
|
|
that's not at all what is happening. BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange. all the trading is just on its own internal DB. when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain. BTC "locked" into a sidechain also do not ever leave the blockchain. no, they're being passed thru the peg to a new blockchain, the SC, which is less secure and thus fundamentally different than the MC. SC's present its own form of problematic deposit; the spvp. talk about friction; it will be necessary to have at minimum a 2d proof of locktime, probably more. and then in the federated server model according to Adam himself, a necessary bounty to prevent cheating by the centralized owners.
...
it is all pie in the sky and glosses over the potential for losing coins while stuck on the SC in case of an attack. these SC's will be attacked as they will be insecure by virtue of the fact they won't have 100% MM. and there is just no guarantee of one getting his coins back on the MC in that event as their simplistic SC sandbox in the Bitcoin Park diagram is suggesting. those miners who were once MM'ing to protect the SC can turn around and perform a 51% attack on the SC and refuse to mine the "proof of lock" thus disabling a return of those BTC all the while going short on the SC at an exchange. the slideshow presents as if nothing can go wrong.
There will be different security models for different use cases. Are there potential security threats? Of course, I think we've all come to an agreemeent that there are no such thing as a risk free extension of Bitcoin. Luckily there's a whole team of very smart people working to understand how these can be best mitigated. That said, your premise : "the next logical extension ... that sidechains make no sense", makes no sense and does not apply to the currently debated blockchain without bitcoin meme. it does make sense. just not to you b/c of your mental framework of how you look at it. those who have promoted SC's, while using your argument of "never leaving the MC" for marketing, have also simultaneously complained about how what they can do with Bitcoin is being constrained by the MC. thus, they want to "move BTC with its value" over to an unconstrained SC, and reanimate them to scBTC, via the passthrough peg. thus, the concept is no different than what the blockchain w/o BTC proponents are arguing which is somehow that the MC can function w/o the currency units. one of Bitcoin's main strengths is forcing current players to play according to the rules as they are which is the MC working in concert with BTC as a self contained financial system. this focuses all development onto the MC to maximize innovation and returns to miners and participants in the long run which is needed b/c of the transition to a tx fee economy. anything that allows innovation to happen off the MC risks devaluing the entire Bitcoin economy. the whitepaper already said that current Bitcoiners could be forced to migrate to a SC if it takes over which would be a disaster, imo. i'd also argue that Bitcoin is in a perfect Nash Equilibrium at the current time. i think we've also all agreed that SC's will be disruptive to the mining equilibrium. anything that disrupts that equilibrium will either be ignored or attacked, imo. hence, i doubt that SC's will get a majority of miners to MM. i'd welcome the evidence you say that shows otherwise. |
|
|
|
that's not at all what is happening. BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange. all the trading is just on its own internal DB. when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.
BTC deposited on an sidechain are parked in an address owned by the sidechain, all the trading is just on its own public side-blockchain. when an owner wants to withdraw from the sidechain, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain. You're neglecting the friction I mentioned above. Also, when mtgox blows up, "someone" has those coin. When a SC blows, those coins will be gone. Let me also introduce another concept that represents my assessment of what will occur. Miners will not support SC's because ultimately SC's will be an unknown risk to their business model. They won't support that uncertainty. That's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
now that the concept of the Bitcoin unit being inextricably linked to the blockchain is finally being better understood, the next logical extension of that concept is that sidechains make no sense. for all of the reasons i, and Adrian, have been arguing for months on end late last year.
No, its a well known logic axiom that the positive does not imply the contrapositive. In other words, yes, the blockchain needs the bitcoin token. But that does not imply that Bitcoin needs the blockchain. Ok, ok, Bitcoin obviously needs the Bitcoin Blockchain to exist as it contains the history of the token's value appreciation and forms the foundation of its awesome features. So what we are really asking is "does Bitcoin need to use the blockchain exclusively?" Well can Bitcoins be traded off chain? Of course. Judging by exchange volumes it seems that most transfers (trades) already occur off chain. that's not at all what is happening. BTC deposited on an exchange are parked in an address owned by the exchange. all the trading is just on its own internal DB. when an owner wants to withdraw from the exchange, it simply draws from the pooled address and sends back to the owner's personal address. none of the BTC has EVER left the blockchain.
A sidechain is just a decentralized way to make off-chain transfers. Judging by what's going on on exchanges, if sidechains work they'll be popular even if their sole use is to decentralize some of the currently-existing centralized solutions (changetip?).
I think that there are very limited uses for a blockchain without an independently valued token (i.e. not a fiat representation token). I have discussed some in this thread. But in the ultimate egg-on-face for all the naysayers, I think we'll discover countless uses for a digital value token (aka bitcoin) and our ability to deploy crypto-currencies into these applications will actually be hindered by the inconvenience of the blockchain. Sidechains (if they end up viable) are an attempt to reduce this inconvenience by opening up development of the blockchain, but keeping the token.
SC's present its own form of problematic deposit; the spvp. talk about friction; it will be necessary to have at minimum a 2d proof of locktime, probably more. and then in the federated server model according to Adam himself, a necessary bounty to prevent cheating by the centralized owners. i was highly disappointed by this simplistic presentation yesterday which didn't get any traction on Reddit whatsover, btw: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tc_fhTPqbdlvApnWQWsgzG1U6NwN9lgkQsTdm5O-9iA/edit?pli=1#slide=id.g6eb72e55c_0103it is all pie in the sky and glosses over the potential for losing coins while stuck on the SC in case of an attack. these SC's will be attacked as they will be insecure by virtue of the fact they won't have 100% MM. and there is just no guarantee of one getting his coins back on the MC in that event as their simplistic SC sandbox in the Bitcoin Park diagram is suggesting. those miners who were once MM'ing to protect the SC can turn around and perform a 51% attack on the SC and refuse to mine the "proof of lock" thus disabling a return of those BTC all the while going short on the SC at an exchange. the slideshow presents as if nothing can go wrong. |
|
|
|
listen to this bullshit Karen Gifford of Ripple Labs spews forth to the Calif Assembly @14:00. Chris Larson also says he doesn't believe we need a new currency: https://clyp.it/zdpzphmdRipple is the enemy. |
|
|
|
|
looks like someone doesn't like what they read in the FOMC minutes. not that it mattered anyways as it was already in the cards. all news is bad news.
|
|
|
|
I cringe everytime I see that guy's name mentioned. Nothing like building your brand name around a fallacy. exactly |
|
|
|
now that the concept of the Bitcoin unit being inextricably linked to the blockchain is finally being better understood, the next logical extension of that concept is that sidechains make no sense. for all of the reasons i, and Adrian, have been arguing for months on end late last year.
what do you think about payment channels (e.g. lightning.network) as a way to scale up in terms of txs throughput? i half listened to the first lecture video on the concept a couple of weeks ago while in the car. but nothing else since. it seems interesting but i do remember that it will require a soft fork. getting all the core devs onboard for a change like that will be tough. much of what i do in this thread is not necessarily make judgments on which tech is good or bad for Bitcoin but what the chances are that a certain tech will actually get adopted given all the political and economic circumstances surrounding Bitcoin and the general economy. sidechains is an exception, i see them as a real "threat" to Bitcoin which could derail the whole system due to unforeseen economic assumptions. |
|
|
|
|
heads up, stocks looking to break to the downside.
|
|
|
|
Wow, I'm really surprised how many people get it there! Is it maybe just few but loud noises (media outlets, VC companies) that give the impression of "blockchain without bitcoin" being the current hype? Or did sentiment change recently? It's just because the subreddit has been bombarded with arguments debunking the misconception over the past few days. In thread after thread. The crowd there can be slow, but hit them hard enough in a short timespan and it starts to sink in. now that the concept of the Bitcoin unit being inextricably linked to the blockchain is finally being better understood, the next logical extension of that concept is that sidechains make no sense. for all of the reasons i, and Adrian, have been arguing for months on end late last year. |
|
|
|
|
damn, i just missed setting the other half of my gold short @1224 by a few minutes the other day. oh well.
|
|
|
|
i too would like to see full scale Armory integration. |
|
|
|
Another thing, Satoshi Nakamoto never talked about "Sound Money" or "New Age Gold Buggery", never.
The only time he did mention why the 21 M supply limit was when he said it would create a "positive feedback loop" as an addition in his first posts.
He always intended bitcoin to be a payment system for e-commerce. The whitepaper has this written all over it and anything else too.
That clearly failed. Because today nobody spends bitcoin (aside from drug dealers, pretty much).
You are just putting your ideologies where they don't even belong.
So much BS from you. Aren't you ashamed of being so obvious? I'm just finishing up Satoshi's writings, the book by Paul Champagne. Of course you've never read it but it mentions Bitcoins similarity to gold and gold mining many times. It's a pervasive theme. He also mentions bitcoins fixed supply and how you ought to pick some up as he predicted they might one day become quite valuable as a result. Don't you realize how hypocritical you sound spending all your valuable time hanging out on a Bitcoin forum trolling? Do you not have any self respect? Yeah, whatever. You know nothing of Satoshi's work, he has prophesied and spake thus: "He [inventor of LEOCoin, Dan Anderson] it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose."It's right there, in The White Paper! Do you even read, bro? sporket, you've busted a sproket. |
|
|
|
How certain can they be that it's indeed "the Ruskies"? Pretty sure. ICE started the oil scam going in 2009, artificially jacking up oil for years. Then recently pulled the rug (I'm sure the US goberment had a hand in it) and now Russia is butthurt. Lol.  No. I mean technically its pretty hard to tell the origin of these kinds of attacks. What makes this so easy? |
|
|
|
How certain can they be that it's indeed "the Ruskies"? |
|
|
|
Another thing, Satoshi Nakamoto never talked about "Sound Money" or "New Age Gold Buggery", never.
The only time he did mention why the 21 M supply limit was when he said it would create a "positive feedback loop" as an addition in his first posts.
He always intended bitcoin to be a payment system for e-commerce. The whitepaper has this written all over it and anything else too.
That clearly failed. Because today nobody spends bitcoin (aside from drug dealers, pretty much).
You are just putting your ideologies where they don't even belong.
So much BS from you. Aren't you ashamed of being so obvious? I'm just finishing up Satoshi's writings, the book by Paul Champagne. Of course you've never read it but it mentions Bitcoins similarity to gold and gold mining many times. It's a pervasive theme. He also mentions bitcoins fixed supply and how you ought to pick some up as he predicted they might one day become quite valuable as a result. Don't you realize how hypocritical you sound spending all your valuable time hanging out on a Bitcoin forum trolling? Do you not have any self respect? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
