Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 03:57:22 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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] 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:34:33 PM
 #14241

the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution. 

the market has invested accordingly based on those.  by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.

we're seeing it right now.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513569442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513569442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513569442
Reply with quote  #2

1513569442
Report to moderator
NotLambchop
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:41:28 PM
 #14242

^
But miners...  vote with their hashpower...  honey badger don't care ... or???
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:43:45 PM
 #14243

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?

Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap.  Can no $ flow to contributors?

Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.  

In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included.  This might be the hardest part.  At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.

FNG
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:44:10 PM
 #14244

FED buying stocks again?

markets are mind boggling
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:48:51 PM
 #14245

the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution.  

the market has invested accordingly based on those.  by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.

we're seeing it right now.

I don't see how SC's can distort the original bitcoin fixed supply rules without being a total sham that no one will adopt.

If side chains allow creation of new coins/tokens not originating through the 'two way peg' then why would anyone in their right mind use them?

Edit: would appreciate an answer to this one please Smiley
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:51:31 PM
 #14246

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.


I expect cryptographic proof of reserve to be mandatory for any centralized solutions in the future

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2014, 02:54:44 PM
 #14247

Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap.  Can no $ flow to contributors?

Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.  

In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included.  This might be the hardest part.  At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.

They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.

I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:55:16 PM
 #14248

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?

Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap.  Can no $ flow to contributors?

Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.  

In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included.  This might be the hardest part.  At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.



have you read u/historians comments on Reddit?  lots of good stuff in there.

for instance, what if the involved core devs decide, or are told, that any signif innovations are to be directed toward a SC they happen to have invested in instead of Bitcoin Core?  

ossification excuses could also be interpreted to mean that innovations proposed by nullc, et al haven't been good enough to implement.

i do find it interesting that the price tanked right after their announcement.  the market doesn't like confusion which will only get worse if we get a bunch of SC's with different economic assumptions that could siphon off BTC to itself to the detriment of the main chain.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 02:56:37 PM
 #14249

Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap.  Can no $ flow to contributors?

Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.  

In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included.  This might be the hardest part.  At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.

They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.

I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.

also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:13:26 PM
 #14250

Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap.  Can no $ flow to contributors?

Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.  

In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included.  This might be the hardest part.  At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.

They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.

I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.

also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.

sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.

if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.

edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/



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

Activity: 1232


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:16:01 PM
 #14251

i do find it interesting that the price tanked right after their announcement.  the market doesn't like
confusion which will only get worse if we get a bunch of SC's with different economic assumptions
that could siphon off BTC to itself to the detriment of the main chain.

Unfortunately we can't know for sure the reason why the recent price tank. 

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2014, 03:16:50 PM
 #14252

Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap.  Can no $ flow to contributors?

Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.  

In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included.  This might be the hardest part.  At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.

They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.

I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.

also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.

sure you are right,if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.

if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.
I don't think the problem is the fork as much as it's the financial incentive to get their fork in, and then block all other future forks that would render sidechains less necessary.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:20:06 PM
 #14253

Sure it would be great if these people did the work as charity, but its hard to demand that, especially for a project with a 6B market cap.  Can no $ flow to contributors?

Many for-profit companies contribute meaningfully to open source.  

In this case, the company will provide open source patches enabling sidechains to Bitcoin, and spend $ to create the consensus to get it actually included.  This might be the hardest part.  At that point, anyone can create their own sidechains.
I like the Conformal model.

They make money from Coinvoice, and btcd is the Bitcoin implementation they use to run their business. They eat their own dogfood, and donate the code into the community, but don't make money from other people using btcd.

I wish more companies would develop alternate implementations using this model.

also, they didn't require a fork to do their thing.

sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.

if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.

edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/




but Gavin's proposal is dev on the main chain which is consistent with the past.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:25:48 PM
 #14254

the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution.  

the market has invested accordingly based on those.  by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.

we're seeing it right now.

I don't see how SC's can distort the original bitcoin fixed supply rules without being a total sham that no one will adopt.

If side chains allow creation of new coins/tokens not originating through the 'two way peg' then why would anyone in their right mind use them?

Edit: would appreciate an answer to this one please Smiley

Sidescams can propose any economic model they want, no different than altcoins.  unfortunately, some ppl will be lured over to them and lose BTC. 

when lots of that activity occurs over years, then i will propose a truly revolutionary idea; let's totally separate these Sidescams technically from the main chain so as to not let ppl lose their BTC!  everyone will then say, "great idea!"
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:30:10 PM
 #14255

Sidechains = sidejobs. Valid way of working but you never know when it will end and it will never replace the main line of work (bitcoin)

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:30:30 PM
 #14256

there is a real practical drawback to Sidescams as well.

let's say one gets popular, say from faster tx times.  it becomes apparent that you should move to the SC.  now all the ppl who have cold wallets scattered round the globe have to go dig them out and make a special tx to transfer them to the SC.  this is not only a hassle but a potential anonymity risk.  after doing so, a non economic actor decides to take advantage of the fact that this merge mined chain is worth destroying.  they'll probably be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.

no, better any innovations get built into Core so as to not disrupt everyones long term storage plans and their investment assumptions.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:33:01 PM
 #14257

the tenets that Satoshi did get right were the economic ones, mainly that of a fixed supply with a fair distribution.  

the market has invested accordingly based on those.  by allowing SC's to change or distort those economic assumption will cause confusion and uncertainty in the Bitcoin price.

we're seeing it right now.

I don't see how SC's can distort the original bitcoin fixed supply rules without being a total sham that no one will adopt.

If side chains allow creation of new coins/tokens not originating through the 'two way peg' then why would anyone in their right mind use them?

Edit: would appreciate an answer to this one please Smiley

Sidescams can propose any economic model they want, no different than altcoins.  unfortunately, some ppl will be lured over to them and lose BTC.  

when lots of that activity occurs over years, then i will propose a truly revolutionary idea; let's totally separate these Sidescams technically from the main chain so as to not let ppl lose their BTC!  everyone will then say, "great idea!"

Yeah some people. Probably the same number of people who use altcoins. Any side chain is going to have the same problems as an alt. Noone will accept it anywhere - 'backed' 100% (or much much less) by bitcoin or not. At the same time bitcoin is achieving real utility as an online currency.

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:35:39 PM
 #14258

part of the hopium alt(shit)coins have is that they may be the bitcoin killer.. its the only driver for speculation in most of them... thus with sidechains it may make ppl realize goddammit why not just stick to my main (job).. thus its actually bullish btc not bearish.. it should keep alt market honest.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 03:41:03 PM
 #14259



sure you are right, if possible avoiding forking is a good thing, but take into account that there
are certain type of features that require a fork.

if memory serves gavin recently proposed an hard fork to introduce a 50% a year automatic
increase of the max block size.

edit: found gavin's proposal https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/10/a-scalability-roadmap/


but Gavin's proposal is dev on the main chain which is consistent with the past.

you're right, again Smiley

The first time I heard about SCs project was while listening to let's talk bitcoin E99
(or even an earlier nee, 77 maybe?).
 
In such episode Adam Back said the he was concerned over digital scarcity, a Bitcoin property harmed by the proliferation of altcoins.

Secondly he said that to sustain a proper level of innovation the community need to find a way to introduce changes into Bitcoin
in more secure way.

With "secure way" I think he meat having a proper test-bed, different from the test network, to check the impact of new changes.

He thinks that SCs is a solution to both problems.

I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it seems to me that he cares about Bitcoin future.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2014, 03:46:20 PM
 #14260

In such episode Adam Back said the he was concerned over digital scarcity, a Bitcoin property harmed by the proliferation of altcoins.

Secondly he said that to sustain a proper level of innovation the community need to find a way to introduce changes into Bitcoin
in more secure way.

With "secure way" I think he meat having a proper test-bed, different from the test network, to check the impact of new changes.

He thinks that SCs is a solution to both problems.

I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it seems to me that he cares about Bitcoin future.
That's probably what Adam Back wants.

However, this isn't just about him.

Blockstream has investors, who presumably want a return on their investment, a return that requires the continuing relevance of sidechains.

If the Bitcoin protocol adopts features that are developed in sidechains, then the need for sidechains diminishes.

What will those investors say about that? What will Blockstream do in response?
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 ... 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!