Bitcoin Forum
September 01, 2015, 10:06:46 AM *
News: New! Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.0 [Torrent]
 
  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 ... 967 »
3561  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 04:30:47 AM
as i see it, SC's are a temptation to make fast money thru inflation thru the indirect method of breaking Bitcoin's Sound Money function using federated servers which allows transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets (anything not BTC).  except that Blockstream will be in the best position to make USD's from that.  the rest of us will have to scramble to figure out which chain contains the most value.

the bigger reward, but longer battle, will be achieved by maintaining a self contained Bitcoin financial system that inextricably links the currency unit to its blockchain.  this will be much easier for us, all we have to do is hodl.

FTFY

maybe.

but those ppl are short sighted as the big column on the far right should be the goal.  there should be a column for gold:

3562  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 03:49:35 AM
here's a clever reply on how Blockstream can make money devving SC's by asherp on Reddit:

[]asherp 2 points 7 hours ago

My guess: it takes time to convert btc onto a given sidechain, and the weaker the chain the longer it takes to convert. The devs could have already started several sidechains that expand bitcoin's features, moving their own btc onto them. When they announce their new sidechain, they can offer to trade for coins on the main chain for slightly above the 1-1 peg. Those who want to use the sidechain can either a) convert their own coins which could take weeks or 2) buy premined sidechain coins for a small fee.
3563  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
as i see it, SC's are a temptation to make fast money thru inflation thru the indirect method of breaking Bitcoin's Sound Money function using the spvp which allows transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets (anything not BTC).  except that Blockstream will be in the best position to make USD's from that.  the rest of us will have to scramble to figure out which chain contains the most value.

the bigger reward, but longer battle, will be achieved by maintaining a self contained Bitcoin financial system that inextricably links the currency unit to its blockchain.  this will be much easier for us, all we have to do is hodl.
3564  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 03:21:38 AM
my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.



+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

Quote
all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.

 Cheesy

my friend. the cost is not time or convenience but trust.

if you want to maintain Bitcoin as Money only the trust for the ledger matters.

to preserve the trust, you have to, as you say,discourage any inflation and devaluation of its value.

by conceding the handling of transactions and proof verification to anyone but the network you forfeit trust.

by conceding the trust to a significant portion of the economy to off-chain schemes and federation of servers/oracles/voting pools you necessarily create more risk and enable possibilities of fractional reserve schemes.


i agree with your first four sentences, not the last.

it's how to accomplish this where we disagree.  by maintaining Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage which has been aptly proven over the last 6 yrs, we have accomplished enough trust to attract all the investment we're seeing currently.  that is what is important.  nothing that happens on gox-like ledgers matters to Bitcoin and its future success.  none of those BTC ever left the blockchain and remain in circulation somewhere in someones hands.  any scBTC that get lost in an attack or SC failure get lost forever.  but the real problem is the offramp; the spvp which breaks the sound money function and ruins everything for everyone.
3565  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 02:41:34 AM
brg444.  i could give a shit about Bitcoin encompassing those pitiful little markets to the left with SC's.  i want the Big Kahuna on the far right.  those amts are $/d:

3566  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 02:33:23 AM
my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.



+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

Quote
all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.
3567  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 02:23:48 AM
Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

And, accordingly on Twitter, his new online store accepts bitcoin.


wat!?  someone should call him out on that one.
3568  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 02:23:11 AM
an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.  

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin.  

Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives

this is new, in Bitcoin land, to use 100% of your mining power you had to forfeit 100% of your income and pay for the energy needed to be a malicious miner, in the post SC BTC world you can use 100% of your mining power and attack the network, while still earning tx fees on other chains, these kind of speculative attacks was not possible before, its just labour and gold rigging, on the protocol level. its will always be profitable.
Hmm...
It seems that in later years (with smaller coinbase TX block rewards) under the scenario of a very successful MM SC, the miner may be 51% the MC and mining the SC profitably without significant opportunity costs.
Since SPV is a soft fork, they could be 51%ing MC without supporting SPV on the MC and maliciously unlocking BTC from the SC.

don't forget the other way around is even more likely.  attacking the SC is costless in that the attack is temporary and doesn't involve destroying your main source of revenue, the MC.  there is greater incentive as well as you will be stealing scBTC which can be converted back to BTC.  you can also short scBTC if their is a market exchange.  you also wouldn't lose the value of your mining hardware investment like you would attacking your main revenue source, the MC.
3569  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 02:16:07 AM
The same value can not be held simultaneously in the main chain and in a side chain.

But the value of the sidechain is derived from the mainchain and so the scarcity and ledger is respected.

This is a very interesting theoretical question: "where is the value stored for a sidechain?"  

blah blah blah

Wow, you can describe all that in one line:  The price change will be proportional to the flow derivative.  

In other words, if BTC was moving (and would have continued to move) into the sidechain, the SC price when "broken" will rise.  If BTC is moving out of the sidechain the price will fall.

If you are still confused think about modelling it.  You would best model this by creating "value" as an immaterial quantity.  Each chain HAS a value (essentially a market cap, which is price * quantity), based on its usefulness.  If 2 chains are pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed in price, so quantity must change -- that is BTC is transmuted from one chain to another.  If 2 chains are not pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed by moving quantity so price must change.  This idea is fundamental; it applies to all commodities and products where you can transform one to another.



the whole point that Peter R is trying to make is that with SC's, value gets "shared" btwn MC and all SC's.  with the potential of being "severed" or "fragmented".  

we don't want that with Bitcoin.  we want it ALL on the mainchain.  we want all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table.

who here wants to share value with Truthcoin?



Cypherdoc your reasoning is completely flawed.  First of all, I know that you aren't an engineer, but you still you should be able to understand  that it CANT be ALL on the mainchain.  There are diametrically opposed requirements.  Like anonymity vs. public spending accountability.  Like handling vast numbers of txns per second vs. keeping all transactions forever.  Like blockchain spam vs. document timestamping.  There are plenty of things with diametrically opposed requirements in life, like sleeping (darkness) and reading a book (bright light); its unrealistic to imagine no 2 applications will emerge in a space which covers the entire concept of economic activity.

Why have all prior altcoins failed?  Simply because they're all essentially the same.  Different POW?  Come on, what end user cares?  Bitcoin 2.0 (assets)?  Colored coins is good enough, but the market is not mature enough for anyone to care right now.  

You may argue that there will never emerge a use case that is both compelling and that Bitcoin cannot handle.  Ok in that case there will be no sidechains, because Metcalf's law, etc and so the functionality will simply sit unused, and eventually be deprecated.  There is no drawback to this.

But if a use case DOES emerge, the only way to pull that value into Bitcoin is via sidechains -- because with a sidechain the Bitcoin 21million scarcity token can be applied to that use case.

You need to contemplate what you cannot contemplate, not make decisions only based on what you know.

So the ONLY way to get "all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table" is via sidechains.


my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

if you give it time to grow it can be that ultimate money.  but by breaking the security link btwn the unit and blockchain, how can this be achieved.  the SC's will be less secure and different ledgers.  they are not extensions of Bitcoin.  they will be speculative.  we want the same things but i don't see how SC's do this.

please explain your vision of atomic trustless exchange.
3570  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 18, 2014, 02:05:18 AM

Do you not recognize there are applications that demand more decentralization than federation/oracles/OT can provide?

Would you trust any lesser decentralized schemes with money functions of Bitcoin that are not supported by the mainchain?

Please STFU this used to be a nice thread to follow.

I agree, that is until cypherdoc polluted it with his FUD and misinformation.

By the way there's at least 4 pages of discussion on sidechains that were created today without any of my participation so maybe you should stay away for awhile if you don't care to discuss them.

what an idiot
3571  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 09:11:54 PM
RUT turning down again.  Dow and Transports peaking out in a Megaphone?

3572  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 08:57:16 PM
Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i think this is where we agree; if we are going to use SC's at all.  of course, there's always OT as well.

Yes.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bingo!  we have a Winner!

If you look at Peter R's three scenarios and my comments (I hoped someone else would point this out...) there is not really that much difference between sidechains and altcoins. The sidechains' promoters just want to get a flying start. In my opinion, they won't. The economics does not support it.




i think you may be right.  see this convo i had with MrMadden on Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2m6r10/forget_currency_bitcoin_tech_could_disrupt/cm44rfd?context=10000
3573  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 08:35:23 PM
The same value can not be held simultaneously in the main chain and in a side chain.

But the value of the sidechain is derived from the mainchain and so the scarcity and ledger is respected.

This is a very interesting theoretical question: "where is the value stored for a sidechain?"  

blah blah blah

Wow, you can describe all that in one line:  The price change will be proportional to the flow derivative.  

In other words, if BTC was moving (and would have continued to move) into the sidechain, the SC price when "broken" will rise.  If BTC is moving out of the sidechain the price will fall.

If you are still confused think about modelling it.  You would best model this by creating "value" as an immaterial quantity.  Each chain HAS a value (essentially a market cap, which is price * quantity), based on its usefulness.  If 2 chains are pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed in price, so quantity must change -- that is BTC is transmuted from one chain to another.  If 2 chains are not pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed by moving quantity so price must change.  This idea is fundamental; it applies to all commodities and products where you can transform one to another.



the whole point that Peter R is trying to make is that with SC's, value gets "shared" btwn MC and all SC's.  with the potential of being "severed" or "fragmented".  

we don't want that with Bitcoin.  we want it ALL on the mainchain.  we want all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table.

who here wants to share value with Truthcoin?



Cypherdoc your reasoning is completely flawed.  First of all, I know that you aren't an engineer, but you still you should be able to understand  that it CANT be ALL on the mainchain.  There are diametrically opposed requirements.  Like anonymity vs. public spending accountability.  Like handling vast numbers of txns per second vs. keeping all transactions forever.  Like blockchain spam vs. document timestamping.  There are plenty of things with diametrically opposed requirements in life, like sleeping (darkness) and reading a book (bright light); its unrealistic to imagine no 2 applications will emerge in a space which covers the entire concept of economic activity.

Why have all prior altcoins failed?  Simply because they're all essentially the same.  Different POW?  Come on, what end user cares?  Bitcoin 2.0 (assets)?  Colored coins is good enough, but the market is not mature enough for anyone to care right now.  

You may argue that there will never emerge a use case that is both compelling and that Bitcoin cannot handle.  Ok in that case there will be no sidechains, because Metcalf's law, etc and so the functionality will simply sit unused, and eventually be deprecated.  There is no drawback to this.

But if a use case DOES emerge, the only way to pull that value into Bitcoin is via sidechains -- because with a sidechain the Bitcoin 21million scarcity token can be applied to that use case.

You need to contemplate what you cannot contemplate, not make decisions only based on what you know.

So the ONLY way to get "all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table" is via sidechains.


my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.
3574  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 08:20:49 PM

how is it even possible to have thousands of spvp SC's when there are not enough resources to MM all of them?  and even then, they're not secure.

Note that Bitcoin itself could be supported with one CPU miner provided that it is not attacked.

As I've mentioned before, trying to out-run the threat of potential mining attack is as futile as a hamster running on a wheel.  Successful sidechains will almost certainly need to evolve other protection modes than simplistic gross sha256 hashing power.  The best hope for Bitcoin to mitigate the inevitable reality that mining becomes unprofitable is that sidechains offer money-making opportunities for miners which are more lucrative than attacking Bitcoin itself.



wow, i didn't think our view of mining diverged so greatly.  POW is the only solution, imo, and we've certainly seen no evidence that any entity is willing to take the gamble to attack Bitcoin.

if we don't screw it up, we can expect tx volumes and fees to continuing setting new highs, just like we're seeing now which will replace block rewards.

but we need outsiders to buy BTC.
3575  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 08:18:42 PM
how is it even possible to have thousands of spvp SC's when there are not enough resources to MM all of them?  and even then, they're not secure.

:-) maybe you can re-read this thread (last 300 pages)

 -  (hint) ... we can use oracles. => useful oracle is TIMESTAMP server => it is possible to use Bitcoin as TIMESTAMP server .. (counterparty uses already)

 - there are more solutions what does not require MM



lol, you don't think i've talked already about federated servers about 100x now?
3576  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 08:03:57 PM
Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i think this is where we agree; if we are going to use SC's at all.  of course, there's always OT as well.

Yes.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bingo!  we have a Winner!
3577  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 08:03:23 PM

I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.


Shouldn't you then believe that the severing of 2-way peg would result in a scBTC value of zero in all cases?  I think I've convincingly shown that this would not always be the case.  Therefore, a % of the value must actually be stored on the sidechain's ledger.  

Sidechains introduce a huge marginal value-add by providing services which people need and cannot achieve on the main chain.  My seat-of-the-pants estimate is that this will easily account for any increase in value associated with scBTC on an ecosystem level and some of the value will probably back-wash into Bitcoin itself in a big way.



who needs the MC to achieve all these services?  to me, Bitoin is Money and only money.  all these services can be created and just adopt BTC as their currency unit of exchange.  this would be how to drive the price of BTC much higher.
3578  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 08:00:23 PM

I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.


Shouldn't you then believe that the severing of 2-way peg would result in a scBTC value of zero in all cases?  I think I've convincingly shown that this would not always be the case.  Therefore, a % of the value must actually be stored on the sidechain's ledger.  

If 2wp does not work then pegged SC does not work.  If we are talking about pegged sidechains then 2wp MUST be working.

or maybe you want to talk about "pegged SC are not possible to create ?" => let's talk about why it is not possible to create functional 2wp SC

SC does not have any value -> until BTC are locked(escrowed) to fund this SC

how is it even possible to have thousands of spvp SC's when there are not enough resources to MM all of them?  and even then, they're not secure.
3579  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 07:56:44 PM
Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i think this is where we agree; if we are going to use SC's at all.  of course, there's always OT as well.
3580  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: November 17, 2014, 07:43:52 PM
Peter R, what if scBTC#1, scBTC#2 and scBTC#3 is still same BTC and has equal value in all chains b/c 2wp works ?
Transfering BTC from chain to chain is only "thought experiment". I have never seen or touched Bitcoin -> b/c it is only private key.

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion. 

I think it's clear that value is stored on both Bitcoin's Ledger and the Sidechain's Ledger.  Erdogan phrased this succinctly:


I think, that value is always stored in MC. You can only put your bitcoins into "escrow" (lock them in main-chain) and use "value" on side-chain.


that statement is a contradiction.
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 ... 967 »
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!