Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 02:27:04 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 [709] 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1995704 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 01:58:31 PM
 #14161

GDX & GDXJ have been hinting.  it feels too soon...
1508380024
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508380024

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508380024
Reply with quote  #2

1508380024
Report to moderator
1508380024
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508380024

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508380024
Reply with quote  #2

1508380024
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508380024
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508380024

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508380024
Reply with quote  #2

1508380024
Report to moderator
1508380024
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508380024

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508380024
Reply with quote  #2

1508380024
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
 #14162

just over the first resistance line on the intermed term:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 02:07:29 PM
 #14163

https://twitter.com/cypherdoc2/status/524924892077379586
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 02:15:50 PM
 #14164

buying bitcoin...

time is running out.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 04:55:36 PM
 #14165

going thru the paper now but this seems to be a problematic assumption:

"the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"


http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 22, 2014, 05:30:32 PM
 #14166

going thru the paper now but this seems to be a problematic assumption:

"the core observation is that “Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency"


http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
Also:

"Centralization risk" is never defined, nor is the mechanism via which it occurs is is explained.

(already know that answer to that one - it's Peter Todd's repackaging the natural monopoly fallacy)

"No safe upgrade path" is a software engineering deficiency, not an inherent feature of the problem space.

Moving transactions off the "main" blockchain deprives it of the tx fee revenue the parent blockchain requires to pay for hashing.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 06:00:11 PM
 #14167

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 06:23:28 PM
 #14168

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.

so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.   

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 06:28:17 PM
 #14169

Peter Todd:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 06:29:34 PM
 #14170

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.

so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.   


Gavin doesn't want to completely remove the blocksize limit; he just wants to increase it in accordance with Moore's Law (roughly). So, space will still be scarce.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 22, 2014, 06:41:13 PM
 #14171

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.

so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.   


Gavin doesn't want to completely remove the blocksize limit; he just wants to increase it in accordance with Moore's Law (roughly). So, space will still be scarce.
The political standoff has been going on since at least 2012, since the altcoiners insisted that it would be too dangerous for Bitcoin to remove the block size limit, while simultaneous courting investors by claiming that Bitcoin can't scale.

The situation isn't helped in any way by people using terms of art they clearly don't understand, like "scarce."

"Scarce" is a binary term. A resource is either scarce, or non-scarce. Space in a block is scarce regardless of whether or not the size of a block is limited by production quotas.

In economics, "scarce" just means "not infinite".

Until it's possible to transmit an infinite amount of data with zero time delay without consuming any energy or using hardware, space in a Bitcoin block will be scarce, even if the average block size is 1 TB.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2296


View Profile
October 22, 2014, 06:41:21 PM
 #14172

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.

so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.   

The proposed transaction rate increase that Gavin seems to favor is both useless for fostering a 'one currency solution' for all economic activity because of the extremely modest increase, and ensures that Bitcoin will eventually mutate beyond recognition due to the exponential nature.  It makes little sense to me, but I like it anyway because it's predictable and would seem to align with my operations out over the course of my lifetime (as a late-40's aged dude.)

Or does it foster predictability?  One of my hypothesis is that this action is just a way to get people used to hard forks and thinking of them as no real big deal.  Most of the userbase (by body-count) at this point won't have much of a clue about what a 'fork' means anyway.  Just a software upgrade at most, and for those using many of the client solutions it won't even require that.  Being able to fork at will (or on demand of the authorities) makes it possible for pretty much anything to happen going forward.  Hell, it might even be possible to re-issue 'lost' (aka, unregistered) coins, or even bump up the 21x10^6 limit if need be.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 06:53:59 PM
 #14173

The situation isn't helped in any way by people using terms of art they clearly don't understand, like "scarce."

i hate that term with a passion. it validates Bitcoin skeptics impression that there aren't enough bitcoins.  Voorhees uses that term very loosely.  that's why you'll hear me use the descriptor "fixed supply" all the time when i describe Bitcoin.

it turns out that there is plenty of gold to go around in the world when it was more useful as a reserve money.  as a matter of fact, if you include gold derivative trading on the Comex or LBMA, the dollar value of all gold trading is greater than most currencies.

fixed supply is what is most important when talking about a store of value.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 07:05:16 PM
 #14174

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I guess given your and justusranvier points and the fact Gavin wants to lift the block size limit, he would be in the opposing sidechains camp.
having a limit in size to the blocks in the bitcoin blockchain, would legitimize the need for sidechains.

so I see a political standoff approaching, soon, where those secretly invested in sidechains seek to limit block size.  

The proposed transaction rate increase that Gavin seems to favor is both useless for fostering a 'one currency solution' for all economic activity because of the extremely modest increase, and ensures that Bitcoin will eventually mutate beyond recognition due to the exponential nature.  It makes little sense to me, but I like it anyway because it's predictable and would seem to align with my operations out over the course of my lifetime (as a late-40's aged dude.)

Or does it foster predictability?  One of my hypothesis is that this action is just a way to get people used to hard forks and thinking of them as no real big deal.  Most of the userbase (by body-count) at this point won't have much of a clue about what a 'fork' means anyway.  Just a software upgrade at most, and for those using many of the client solutions it won't even require that.  Being able to fork at will (or on demand of the authorities) makes it possible for pretty much anything to happen going forward.  Hell, it might even be possible to re-issue 'lost' (aka, unregistered) coins, or even bump up the 21x10^6 limit if need be.



isnt there supposed to be a consensus amongst the network before any fork to be effective?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2296


View Profile
October 22, 2014, 07:15:45 PM
 #14175


isnt there supposed to be a consensus amongst the network before any fork to be effective?


Ya, but 'the network' is, unhappily, implemented as an increasingly small and centralized group of miners by my read.  'Consensus' for someone looking at a multi-million dollar mining facility being appropriated is basically 'do what the fuck the host tells you to do.'  If that means run the 'official' protocol issued by the 'official' bitcoin.org governing body, that's what most miners will likely do.

One of the practical advantages of gold is that it is fairly immune from 'good ideas' necessary to scale up.  In physical form at least.


FNG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile
October 22, 2014, 07:23:21 PM
 #14176

One of the practical advantages of gold is that it is fairly immune from 'good ideas' necessary to scale up.  In physical form at least.


Gold is a great hedge for bitcoin either not panning out the way we think it will or Governments around the world with large holdings disagreeing with the U.S and bidding the price up to clear debts.

Bitcoin + Gold = freedom from monetray bs
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 09:04:35 PM
 #14177

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


View Profile
October 22, 2014, 09:37:01 PM
 #14178

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.


Gavin should be very pro-sidechains.  It solves his need for scalability. 
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
October 22, 2014, 09:39:37 PM
 #14179

http://www.blockstream.com/

would be interested in hearing what Gavin thinks of sidechains specifically:

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/524975947356061697

I like sidechians. It can solve a lot of problems.


Gavin should be very pro-sidechains.  It solves his need for scalability. 

Many plug-ins can be installed on top of bitcoin.
e.g.  sidechain for local economy (town, country) .. "main" blockchain can remain small
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 22, 2014, 09:47:16 PM
 #14180

sidechain for local economy (town, country)
This is actually a great idea.

Local currencies should be given their chance to shine so that their inherent brokenness can be made obvious to everyone.

Kind of like what Freicoin did for the concept of demurrage.
Pages: « 1 ... 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 [709] 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 ... 1558 »
  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!