Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:17:57 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 [605] 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805108 times)
nexern
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 597



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:05:26 PM
 #12081

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap.  only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so.  and only for a specific purpose.  the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:14:30 PM
 #12082

Interesting timing: http://two-bit-idiot.tumblr.com/post/97258629244/adept-ibm-samsung-bitcoin
Moneroman88
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:17:07 PM
 #12083

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

I call BS BTC hype Wink, there are far superior technologies than Bitcoin available right now at this very second and you're aware of that. Monero (XMR) uses advanced CN technology that actually introduces real privacy, a point that is absolutely crucial. Beyond that Monero is supported by the majority of the oldschool Bitcoiners, hence the status quo is that Bitcoin's survival depends on the good will of Monero supporters not to let it crash. Does't really look all that solid... but go ahead and keep hyping Bitcoin as the only thing that matters...
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:17:52 PM
 #12084

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips.  Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

that unfairness is perceived by the mkt and discourages any future investors from wanting to be bagholders.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:21:44 PM
 #12085

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap.  only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so.  and only for a specific purpose.  the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.



Gavin and the core devs do make improvements when they and the community see a need to do so.  fortunately, the network is performing quite well with increasing hashrate and more merchants.  

what you call a standstill, i call stability.  investors want a degree of certainty and predictability.  Bitcoin provides that.  NXT otoh, keeps changing.
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


Crypto Kingdom (Creator)


View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:28:10 PM
 #12086

Someone made a comment that if a second crypto had a value of the same order of magnitude as bitcoin, then all cryptos would lose their credibility because cryptos would no longer have scarcity anymore. My point was that it's possible to have a multitude of stores of value, and that a second one might take a chunk out of the first, but it wouldn't destroy the idea of cryptos as a store of value.

It does not matter if 99% lose their faith on something, if the remaining 1% are wealthy enough and still accept it.

Bitcoin is an accepted medium for the extinguishing of a monetary obligation by 0.01% of world's population currently. It is not big even yet. If another cryptocurrency would come and match or overtake it, it would hardly matter anything.

The situation would be different if the general public did believe in crypto and accept them now. But that's not the case.

Just compare to the charade that is going on every day with the fiat currency world. None of the altcoin scams are as blatant. "To obtain a balance of coinX, you need to become indebted denominated in coinX and pay us interest...." and so the story goes.

Yet fiat has value.


_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:32:52 PM
 #12087

It's only unfair as long as you didn't make any money off of it. Given that forging gives extremely minimal returns compared to other options you could spend your nxt on, this argument has grown very tired. Then again, don't the rich always get richer, how does nxt do this any differently?

You should know that more then anyone given the trading capital you likely have at your fingertips.  Pretty unfair if you ask me. You should just leave all your money in the bank. The interest would give you more then forging would!

that unfairness is perceived by the mkt and discourages any future investors from wanting to be bagholders.

That's not what I'm seeing...

_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:33:51 PM
 #12088

Or...

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:37:55 PM
 #12089

not impressed
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:46:05 PM
 #12090

still just a series of higher lows.  plus, we know how to deal with the blocking walls:



Odd that this impresses you then.
nexern
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 597



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:49:44 PM
 #12091

ppl will always want to stay in the most liquid store of value which in this case is Bitcoin b/c of its fixed supply and market cap.  only when they need to trade it for a token will they do so.  and only for a specific purpose.  the underlying platform's purpose can have value, it's just that its tokens will trend to 0 from lack of liquidity and limited demand.

In what market have this ever happened (one stock/currency has dominated all others due to liquidity/marketcap)? Just as long as the other token/coin has sufficient liquidity/marketcap, then why wouldn't people stay in the other one? In fact, if there were two cryptos of similar market size, the liquidity of both would be improved by the trade between them.

well, for 5000 yrs or so, gold dominated currencies.  silver was a hack b/c there wasn't enough physical gold to serve the world's need for a widespread money that could be easily divided.

Bitcoin comes along and now we can disseminate a fixed supply currency easily worldwide.  we don't need any other cryptocurrency hacks to serve a global monetary function.

wow, so you say btc is perfect and there is no need for improvements?
and i thought it is proved that standstill is a throwback.



Gavin and the core devs do make improvements when they and the community see a need to do so.  fortunately, the network is performing quite well with increasing hashrate and more merchants.  

what you call a standstill, i call stability.  investors want a degree of certainty and predictability.  Bitcoin provides that.  NXT otoh, keeps changing.

while this sounds correct and makes sense, it change the context of your prior statement.
nonetheless i really doubt the core devs are in a free position to make improvements on
real demand. the blockchain tech is usable for much more than just a simple value storage
and there is a measurable demand for this additional need, indicated by various new projects.

however, i don't want to derail your thread here - which - btw is quite interesting.
we will see the outcome latest next year. hopefully you are right.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 10:51:43 PM
 #12092

still just a series of higher lows.  plus, we know how to deal with the blocking walls:



Odd that this impresses you then.

odd that you equate the two.

Bitcoin has much more proven history and money behind it.  NXT is still sucking on a teet as devphp put it.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
September 15, 2014, 10:52:06 PM
 #12093

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
September 15, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
 #12094

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.

+1

i try not to worry about the mountains  of lil shitcoins around, causing some drag on bitcoins value.

as i see it the coins are really there for some poor mans speculative fun  ( most of which were/are outright pump and dumps get rich quick schemes ), and for the most part poeple have been using them as such, I myself made/lost a fair amount of time and money playing with alts  Tongue

which is fine.

bitcoin is by far "better money" than these other altcoins for so many reasons...
In the end good money drives out bad.
All of the shitcoins you see today will fade and by this time next year there will be a slue of newer alts offering even more speculative fun!

which is fine.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 11:22:10 PM
 #12095

disruption continues:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 15, 2014, 11:47:52 PM
 #12096

once you get the politicians onboard, you know what happens:

http://www.lagop.com/donate
User705
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 12:04:30 AM
 #12097

Why does it have to be us vs them? Why must the crypto space be so divided? I am not a "pos guy". I simply see some value and utility in a well designed system and want to share that with others, just as I do with bitcoin.

Fiat is the enemy here.
Fiat is not the enemy.

Bad money is the enemy.

In terms of its trust model PoS is more similar to fiat money than it is similar to Bitcoin.

+1

i try not to worry about the mountains  of lil shitcoins around, causing some drag on bitcoins value.

as i see it the coins are really there for some poor mans speculative fun  ( most of which were/are outright pump and dumps get rich quick schemes ), and for the most part poeple have been using them as such, I myself made/lost a fair amount of time and money playing with alts  Tongue

which is fine.

bitcoin is by far "better money" than these other altcoins for so many reasons...
In the end good money drives out bad.
All of the shitcoins you see today will fade and by this time next year there will be a slue of newer alts offering even more speculative fun!

which is fine.

Which MANY reasons?  Most altcoins are simply blatant copies of bitcoin.  The only thing separating bitcoin is the network effect.  But bitcoin currently is still tiny compared to real world.  MySpace was around before Facebook but how did it work out in the end?  Western Union could adopt a PoS similar to Nxt and overnight have more users then bitcoin, more points of exchange, greater liquidity and greater foreign exchange convertability.  Heck they can do their own PoW implementation and have every location mining if Nxt type PoS is proven insecure.  Is crypto better then gold?  Sure.  But barely a few years after its invention to claim it will forever be better then what might be invented/implemented next is silly.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 12:17:13 AM
 #12098

No.  Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.

What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.

You have not made your point clear. Are you trying to claim Nxt security relies on obscurity? If that is the claim, that is provable false as you can decompile Java and steal Nxt. Given that isn't hapening, what are you trying to claim?

He is simply stating that without source code and deterministic builds you can not be sure someone hasn't decompiled it, modified it to steal your coins, and then recompiled it.  But if you trust the person distributing it has verified it, by all means run it.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
September 16, 2014, 02:00:22 AM
 #12099

No.  Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.

What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.

Point missed completely.

The vast majority of users simply download and run code.  They do not compile it.  A deterministic build process enables any random outsider, at any time, to prove that the given source code compiles to binary (or byte) code that matches exactly, byte-for-byte with what is produced by the official release team.

"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.

An attacker may otherwise stuff a backdoor into the bytecode, but not the source code.  "Anyone can compile it" developers would never notice the backdoor... yet 99% of the users still have the backdoor.

Furthermore, you want a process like bitcoin's where multiple developers each produce a build, and PGP-sign the produced hashes.  In this way, you need not worry about a backdoor'd compiler producing evil bytecode without the developer's knowledge.

Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 16, 2014, 02:34:37 AM
 #12100

No.  Those hashes prove nothing. A deterministic build process enables multiple independent parties to generate the exact same output, given a git commit id.
If you cannot prove what's in users hands is exactly what came out from the java->bytecode compiler, then you should not use that binary.

Funny logic. Do all million or so BTC users compile from the source before using it? I guess we should not even be using any online site, like coinbase, as we don't have source. All Windows users should never use BTC either as BTC is only for people who compile from the source.

What's your point anyway? Nxt is open source. Anyone can compile it. Given it's in Java, anyone can even decompile it. We have dozens of clones.

Point missed completely.

The vast majority of users simply download and run code.  They do not compile it.  A deterministic build process enables any random outsider, at any time, to prove that the given source code compiles to binary (or byte) code that matches exactly, byte-for-byte with what is produced by the official release team.

"Anyone can compile" is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that you can prove the release team binaries match the source code exactly.

An attacker may otherwise stuff a backdoor into the bytecode, but not the source code.  "Anyone can compile it" developers would never notice the backdoor... yet 99% of the users still have the backdoor.

Furthermore, you want a process like bitcoin's where multiple developers each produce a build, and PGP-sign the produced hashes.  In this way, you need not worry about a backdoor'd compiler producing evil bytecode without the developer's knowledge.


explain this to me so that i understand how the determinism is built.

is each accepted commit or addition to the source code hashed first followed by a hash of the entire new source code in essence creating a chain of hashes much like the blockchain?  then the final source code is pgp signed by the private key of each trusted builder?
Pages: « 1 ... 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 [605] 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!