Bitcoin Forum
July 03, 2015, 03:37:21 PM *
News: Change your password!
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 [179] 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 ... 929 »
3561  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 09:19:00 PM
It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?

no, what's happening is you don't understand the tech.

presumably, these scBTC if pegged 1:1 and properly implemented would have a market price closely correlated to BTC's from the jump. the price of BTC units on a sidechain is not dependent on whether the innovation is working or not

i do understand the tech.  it's you who do not understand the economics. 

it's perfectly reasonable to expect the price to differ in certain circumstances even in the presence of arbitrage.

well then if you do understand this I will say yes, of course, the correlation between market exchange rate and technical conversion rate will be considered in my review of sidechains. I fail to see the point of that question though considering the obvious answer.

ok, so if i understand your answer, relative market price btwn a BTC and a scBTC will aid in the assessment of whether a SC is succeeding or not?  for example, if the price of scBTC is rising and leading the price of BTC, that might be an indicator that the innovation related to the SC is valid?

second question, would transfer of a "significant number" of BTC to scBTC mean anything to you?

3562  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 09:07:26 PM
It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?

no, what's happening is you don't understand the tech.

presumably, these scBTC if pegged 1:1 and properly implemented would have a market price closely correlated to BTC's from the jump. the price of BTC units on a sidechain is not dependent on whether the innovation is working or not

i do understand the tech.  it's you who do not understand the economics. 

it's perfectly reasonable to expect the price to differ in certain circumstances even in the presence of arbitrage.
3563  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:59:50 PM

You are being really disingenous again.

Did Satoshi warn about the dangers of altscams in the Bitcoin white paper?

and you're just being a shill again trying to discredit anyone who is asking good questions.

what does Satoshi have to do with what i would believe to be an expected disclaimer warning to moving one's BTC to a SC?
3564  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:57:53 PM
It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?
3565  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)



it's not obvious given my reading of the paper.  maybe to you and me, but not the average person.

why shouldn't i expect the "obvious" to be expressed as a warning in the paper?
3566  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:35:07 PM
brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

taking scBTC sure. if by "thus btc too" you mean the bitcoins attached to it then yes I agree also that it is possible.

but taking Bitcoin down with it? I wouldn't go there

and why don't I see Maxwell warning us of that?
3567  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:31:27 PM
brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

And if so why hasn't Maxwell warned us of this?
3568  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:27:06 PM
what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

once the sidechains technology has matured enough and has been vetted by different, independent, reviewers

much like Bitcoin, when it has been made clear that the *open-source* code of the sidechain is safe and sound then I see no reason to be concerned with sidechain failure.



would a stable or rising price for scbtc enter into that assessment?
3569  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:02:53 PM
Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.



what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?
3570  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 08:00:49 PM
Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.
3571  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 27, 2014, 07:31:43 PM
Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
3572  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 25, 2014, 10:49:56 AM

not at all. The discussion in this thread have moved way beyond the limited concepts in that paper.
3573  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 09:09:51 PM
i think we've identified numerous potential problems in different scenarios in the last several pages that need answering.  i'm not going to repeat them yet again.

all of your potential problems depend on the creation of a sidecoin when this is not the main use case of altCHAINS

no it does not. I've been talking about SC ' s alone with 1:1 scBTC
3574  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 07:32:36 PM
But if not...
The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime.

If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin.

What if miners migrate to the sidechain diverting mining resources from bitcoin.  Would this leave bitcoin exposed to a 51% attack?  If a 51% attack were easy, then some of the conversion transactions could be reversed, leaving an imbalance of coins and screwing up the peg.

Edit:  I guess mining would be more or less pegged too.  Miners could mine bitcoin, convert so SC and sell, at least as long as there was a mining reward.

if i was a gvt, i'd fork the mainchain into an uberSC that employed a single beneficial factor over the mainchain, anonymity being the first one.  now, as BldSwtTrs has said above, all current mainchain BTC tucked away in cold wallets all over the world will probably be cracked open out of greed and some out of necessity and sent to the uberSC.  even tho the security at the moment might be risky, why not, as the paper has said that even in a SC failure you can get back into your BTC via the peg.  all upside, no downside!  which is it Greg, can we get back or can't we?

assuming the paper is accurate, mining will be forced to transition/follow as well, but that is where the security holes start gaping wide open.  as you said, attacks will made on the network causing double spends and loss of confidence.  also, individual hodlers making the transition now risk identification and hacks.  

now, to amplify the attack as the gvt, i would deploy as many new single feature uberSC's as there are beneficial features with a divide and destroy objective.  BTC and miners would be scrambling to different uberSC's they perceived gave them the most benefit only to be eventually destroyed by attacks as a result of less security for each uberSC during the transition.

this is why, potentially, all innovation should be done on the mainchain with the current security model, hashing rate, and BTC distribution in place safely tucked away.
3575  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 06:30:18 PM
FED buying stocks again?

markets are mind boggling

not really.  i'm hoping and expecting the $DJT to go back up and make another high while the $DJI fails to do the same.  that would be a Dow Theory non-confirmation which has been associated with the vast majority of stock market tops over the last 100 yrs.  that's one of my markers:

3576  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 06:09:47 PM
From the paper - implies there is no risk of degraded sidechains. Also, that there is no real harm of a SC becoming more used than BTC because the side chain coins are backed by BTC:

---
Furthermore, because sidechains transfer existing assets from the parent chain rather than creating new ones, sidechains cannot cause unauthorised creation of coins, relying instead on the parent chain to maintain the security and scarcity of its assets.

Further still, participants do not need to be as concerned that their holdings are locked in a single experimental altchain, since sidechain coins can be redeemed for an equal number of parent chain coins. This provides an exit strategy, reducing harm from unmaintained software.

On the other hand, because sidechains are still blockchains independent of Bitcoin, they are free to experiment with new transaction designs, trust models, economic models, asset issuance semantics, or cryptographic features. We will explore many of the possibilities for sidechains further in Section 5.

An additional benefit to this infrastructure is that making changes to Bitcoin itself becomes much less pressing: rather than orchestrating a fork which all parties need to agree on and implement in tandem, a new “changed Bitcoin” could be created as a sidechain. If, in the medium term, there
were wide agreement that the new system was an improvement, it may end up seeing significantly more use than Bitcoin. As there are no changes to parent chain consensus rules, everyone can switch in their own time without any of the risks associated with consensus failure.
---

i think we've identified numerous potential problems in different scenarios in the last several pages that need answering.  i'm not going to repeat them yet again.
3577  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 05:56:40 PM
where the fuck is brg444 when we need him?
3578  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 05:53:20 PM


If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.


It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges.

^^This is how I understand it - the owner of the scBTC is always in control of the original BTC, it's just locked. A malfunction/default/shutdown of the SC doesn't effect your ability to unlock the original BTC. Correct me if I'm wrong on the following from a technical standpoint:

A SC only references that the original BTC is continually "locked" in the correct way. As soon as it is unlocked the SC asset ceases to exist as well (regardless if the SC network is actively functioning)
If that's true nobody will have an incentive to stay in the main blockchain. Every body will leave the BTC blockchain to enjoy an upside potentiel without downside in a sidechain. That's really bad.

now that's a really damn good point.
3579  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 05:49:44 PM
nullc, in pm's with me, has admitted that there are cases where scBTC can be lost on SC's.  i should've gotten into the specifics.
3580  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: October 24, 2014, 05:43:37 PM
I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?

If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it.
But if not...
The pegging will be done on-the-fly in-and-out as needed by the users. It will only need a small amount of bitcoins to start. If a better SC comes out, you can switch back to your bitcoins and switch to another SC anytime.

If someone builds the uber SC, then a lot of people will switch, but the bitcoins will still exist just in case a better SC comes along someday. Bitcoin will not be destroyed because it is the primary liquidity for the SC. In fact it should drive the price of BTC up for cold storage purposes just in case the SC gets broken. Miners will be the sentinels for Bitcoin.
Why BTC is the primary liquidity for SC? What prevent people to buy the SC on the open market with fiat?
It will still have to be pegged with bitcoin or else it is a fiat altcoin. So Bitcoin will have not only the same value, but also the ability to magically convert to that SC or any other SC and thus the ultimate arbitrage between SC coins that can bypass exchanges.

earlier i was trying to conceive a scenario where the mining fees required to transit the peg might become exorbitant thus negating the perfect arbitrage.  what would happen if either BTC or scBTC is perceived to be in crisis and failing?  anyone trying to get out from the failing unit might have to pay thru the nose to do so as the miner would be taking signif fee risk with a unit heading to zero.
Pages: « 1 ... 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 [179] 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 ... 929 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!