Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2017, 10:12:43 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 ... 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] 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1978944 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:30:45 AM
 #14221

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're  doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.

Initially I thought the whole idea was coming from Back but according  to nullc, he was the one to spear head this. I've had many public disagreements with nullc for a long time around the economics of Bitcoin and what I've perceived to be a dismissive attitude toward non dev opinion and a misunderstanding of economics and game theory.  The bitcoin.org press centre debacle with Andreas is a  great example. I've always wondered why he and Luke were never hired by a Bitcoin company. He claims he's had lots of offers so I have to accept that. But if you watch the Princeton University video on Bitcoin with Ed Felton, you'll see he's kinda different and he admits it . Otoh, I give him major props for contributing so much to bitcoin and our technical understanding of it.  He's helped me in that regard and clearly he is respected by the other core devs.

That's what makes this play so interesting. nullc despite his own political deficiencies has managed to apparently recruit Pieter and Matt, both of whom I have the utmost respect for. Mark, I have no clue but he seems to be more emotional about this whole project and has tried to shout me down  on  reddit several times.

Personally, I think Bitcoin should be left alone to do its thing. It's too early to be monkeying with the code especially by a for profit company despite its members. But i could be wrong too. What they're proposing introduces complexity on a major scale and the effects  on mining is unclear and have the potential to disrupt Bitcoin. Despite what they've said, I doubt any of them have significant amounts invested in Bitcoin. Nullc has been surprisingly skeptical of bitcoin and we know Back has publicly admitted he missed it. The others i really wouldn't know. The point is, why let a for profit bunch of guys make changes to the code?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506075163
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506075163

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506075163
Reply with quote  #2

1506075163
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:51:24 AM
 #14222

Maybe the real Tragedy of the Commons is 'devs gotta dev'.

We have this great open source project so why not tinker with it?  I've always said that "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created". Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money. Why so much emphasis on other asset uses I'll never understand.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:59:26 AM
 #14223

Maybe the real Tragedy of the Commons is 'devs gotta dev'.

We have this great open source project so why not tinker with it?  I've always said that "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created". Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money. Why so much emphasis on other asset uses I'll never understand.


This is exactly how its all going to unfold imho. Bitcoin is perfect.
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 11:13:32 AM
 #14224

Maybe the real Tragedy of the Commons is 'devs gotta dev'.

We have this great open source project so why not tinker with it?  I've always said that "the geeks fail to understand that which they hath created". Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money. Why so much emphasis on other asset uses I'll never understand.


+1

Lets really plant the flag with Bitcoin first.

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 12:02:56 PM
 #14225

all this monkeying with bitcoin makes me think of the unix koan...

http://catb.org/esr/writings/unix-koans/ten-thousand.html

Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: “There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer, who was very proud of his mastery of C, said: “How can this be? C is the language in which the very kernel of Unix is implemented!”

Master Foo replied: “That is so. Nevertheless, there is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer grew distressed. “But through the C language we experience the enlightenment of the Patriarch Ritchie! We become as one with the operating system and the machine, reaping matchless performance!”

Master Foo replied: “All that you say is true. But there is still more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten thousand lines of C.”

The programmer scoffed at Master Foo and rose to depart. But Master Foo nodded to his student Nubi, who wrote a line of shell script on a nearby whiteboard, and said: “Master programmer, consider this pipeline. Implemented in pure C, would it not span ten thousand lines?”

The programmer muttered through his beard, contemplating what Nubi had written. Finally he agreed that it was so.

“And how many hours would you require to implement and debug that C program?” asked Nubi.

“Many,” admitted the visiting programmer. “But only a fool would spend the time to do that when so many more worthy tasks await him.”

“And who better understands the Unix-nature?” Master Foo asked. “Is it he who writes the ten thousand lines, or he who, perceiving the emptiness of the task, gains merit by not coding?”

Upon hearing this, the programmer was enlightened.

Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU) || http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 12:26:53 PM
 #14226

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.


this is bold, pun intended Smiley

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:01:45 PM
 #14227

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.


this is bold, pun intended Smiley

Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why?  Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better. 

Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain. 

Almost sounds like your new Fed.
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:08:50 PM
 #14228

Perhaps the group of core devs are wising up to the fact that if Bitcoin is stagnant it will be quickly made obsolete by NXT. Not that these sidechains are a guarantee against that, but they could help delay this event.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:15:05 PM
 #14229

Perhaps the group of core devs are wising up to the fact they if Bitcoin is stagnant it will be quickly made obsolete by NXT. Not that these sidechains are a guarantee against that, but they could help delay this event.

I thought you promised never to return to this thread ever again to be seen pumping NXT?

Not that you're not welcome to be here mind you.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2014, 01:17:44 PM
 #14230

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k070h/enabling_blockchain_innovations_with_pegged/clhak9c
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:18:10 PM
 #14231

I thought you promised never to return to this thread ever again to be seen pumping NXT?

Not that you're not welcome to be here mind you.

I just feel bad to see you carry this burden of bias and visit you once in a while to offer friendly advice. Hope you don't mind too much Smiley
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:22:53 PM
 #14232

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.


this is bold, pun intended Smiley

Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why?  Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better.  

Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain.  

Almost sounds like your new Fed.

I've no strong opinion about SCs.

I only gave a cursory glance to the white-paper and far as I can see to use Bitcoin as a parent
chain they "only" need to extend script adding a new opcode to recognise and validate the special
SPV proof they use to implement two-way peg mechanism.

I dunno if the SCs will be successful, but even if implemented nobody will force someone to use
it as long as I'm not missing something obvious.

Having said that you've to fight for what you think are right with all the tools at your disposal.

edit: fix typos

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:31:41 PM
 #14233

Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol.  Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain.  The main chain will not be directly affected? 

Quote
Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2014, 01:31:54 PM
 #14234

Speaking of potential conflicts of interests:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/524949510347165696
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:38:21 PM
 #14235

Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol.  Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain.  The main chain will not be directly affected? 

Quote
Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain.

relavant section

Quote from: sidechains.pdf
To use Bitcoin as the parent chain, an extension to script which can recognise and validate such
SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact
enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on
transactions which do not use the new features.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:41:55 PM
 #14236

Is this a silk road moment?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:43:41 PM
 #14237

Is this a silk road moment?

care to elaborate?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 01:44:52 PM
 #14238

Correct me if I am wrong, but from reading the whitepaper there will be no changes to the core protocol.  Each sidechain will be firewalled from the main chain and with only access to data from the main chain.  The main chain will not be directly affected? 

Quote
Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain.

relavant section

Quote from: sidechains.pdf
To use Bitcoin as the parent chain, an extension to script which can recognise and validate such
SPV proofs would be required. At the very least, such proofs would need to be made compact
enough to fit in a Bitcoin transaction. However, this is just a soft-forking change, without effect on
transactions which do not use the new features.

Thanks.  I'm not sure about tinkering with the code either, even in a small way with a soft fork.  I was under the impression that these chains could be implemented completely outside.  

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:00:24 PM
 #14239

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.


this is bold, pun intended Smiley

Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why?  Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better. 

Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain. 

Almost sounds like your new Fed.

Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one.  These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you?  You are trusting a third party).

Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins.

Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles.  These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price.  Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid.  Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.

TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply.

PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:02:56 PM
 #14240

Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.

In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's  response to me on Twitter giving a  hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit  their  company? I think the market is worried  about this very thing.


this is bold, pun intended Smiley

Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why?  Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better. 

Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain. 

Almost sounds like your new Fed.

Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one.  These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you?  You are trusting a third party).

Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins.

Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles.  These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price.  Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid.  Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.

TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply.

PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place.


and you see no problem with it being designed and run by a for profit company?
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 ... 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!