Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 03:20:06 PM *
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 ... 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] 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011835 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:56:44 PM
 #14301

not sure where you're going with this.

if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.

if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?

your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.

I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.


you're missing the overall pt.  it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage.  first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain.  then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain.  the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof.  the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.

anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here.  the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511450406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511450406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511450406
Reply with quote  #2

1511450406
Report to moderator
1511450406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511450406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511450406
Reply with quote  #2

1511450406
Report to moderator
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:14:16 PM
 #14302

not sure where you're going with this.

if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.

if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?

your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.

I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.


you're missing the overall pt.  it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage.  first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain.  then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain.  the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof.  the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.

anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here.  the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.

Why is this a problem if the code is all open source? So long as the community can vet a change far before it becomes adopted into core, I see no issue with this. It would take an evil genius on steroids to pull off a trojan horse in this community of tin foil paranoid freaks (I say that in the most lovingly way possible!).

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:20:24 PM
 #14303

not sure where you're going with this.

if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.

if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?

your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.

I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.


you're missing the overall pt.  it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage.  first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain.  then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain.  the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof.  the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.

anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here.  the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.

You cannot incorporate some features in main chain. Sometimes we need something hard as diamond and sometime soft as a toilet paper.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:24:36 PM
 #14304

I don't doubt that side chains offer some exciting possibilities. But I am still not sure this is the right thing for bitcoin. Perhaps this if implemented into bitcoin core it will herald the end of the alt's in the future and a proliferation of side chains offering discrete services, all fully or partially backed by bitcoin.

I am not against the idea overall. But these new chains are really just alt coins initially backed to some degree by bitcoin. Perhaps that is the leverage the bitcoin 2.0 coins need to succeed in correcting some of the (perceived or real) deficiencies in bitcoin right now. Perhaps we need a static reliable bitcoin blockchain to act as a store of value, in essence like a digital gold reservoir which backs future alt digital currencies. However I suspect this is likely to be wishful thinking. I say alt currencies because these alt chains will not run on the bitcoin chain or protocol, but will simply be linked to it by this 'two way peg' system. If the last five years has shown anything, it is that 'there can be only one' is true really with bitcoin market cap being gigantic and all the rest of the alts being a tiny afterthought.

With each alt side chain presumably there will be an IPO type event where a portion of btc coins go into a black hole of being 'locked'. This will dwindle available supply of btc and instead of being sold off on exchange (ethereum) and depressing the price could actually support it. If lots of popular side chains exist the actual use of bitcoin could become reduced or even minimal. What will keep bitcoin from losing it's value? Nothing I suspect.

What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown. Will bitcoin value suddenly evaporate as all the coins sublime into the new chain in a mad rush? One can imagine some amazing pump and dump opportunities for clever side chain developers to acquire an awful lot of bitcoins through this 'two way peg' mechanism. (Early adopters again wahey!) Or to actually kill bitcoin with if a superior chain emerges.

What happens when a side chain is insecure and is 51%'d if decentralised or is simply hacked if centralised. It isn't hard to imagine a massive gox style disaster with hundreds of thousands of coins getting stolen or lost?

Interesting times.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:27:35 PM
 #14305

not sure where you're going with this.

if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet.

if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core?

your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC.

I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.


you're missing the overall pt.  it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage.  first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain.  then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain.  the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof.  the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.

anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here.  the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.

Hopefully those will change Bitcoin for the better. The only thing one can do is participate to the process fostering his own priorities in a way to balance those of other involved actors.

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, 08:32:26 PM
 #14306

Why is this a problem if the code is all open source?

actually, this is very true.  for all my ranting, in the end, i think they fail spectacularly.  i could be wrong.

but given Bitcoin's future price projections due to its fixed supply and liquidity as a new form of money, why on earth would anyone move BTC to a high risk, low security Sidechain?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:34:29 PM
 #14307


What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.

many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC.  possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:41:09 PM
 #14308


What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.

many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC.  possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk.

That is the point really - unnecessary risk to bitcoin, to implement 2.0 features. We should be just improving bitcoin instead. The real reason for this idea is the same reason as for everything. Profit for the side chain developers.

Has anyone a convincing argument why side chains are positive for bitcoin, rather than cryptocurrency in general? I think there is a danger we actually all collectively write the prophecy that a bitcoin 2.0 blockchain will come along and emerge in the coming years to dethrone bitcoin. It would be ironic if it was initially backed by bitcoin then destroyed it's creator like frankenstein.

It does also seem totally counter intuitive to the incredible infrastructure, funding, merchant/user integration/adoption that has built up around bitcoin in recent years to then build entirely chains on top of bitcoin now.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:44:35 PM
 #14309

trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past.
I hear alarm bells whenever people start talking like this.

The people who communities blindly trust because "they've always served us in the past" are exactly the kind of people who become prime targets for blackmail, extortion, etc.

Do not spin my words around.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to well respected members of the community is NOT blind trust. It is called exactly that, respect.

It is perfectly fine to consider what COULD go wrong. It is another thing to imply conspiration to damage Bitcoin when there is NO signs and incentives of doing so.

"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
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:48:12 PM
 #14310


What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.

many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC.  possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk.

That is the point really - unnecessary risk to bitcoin, to implement 2.0 features. We should be just improving bitcoin instead. The real reason for this idea is the same reason as for everything. Profit for the side chain developers.

Has anyone a convincing argument why side chains are positive for bitcoin, rather than cryptocurrency in general? I think there is a danger we actually all collectively write the prophecy that a bitcoin 2.0 blockchain will come along and emerge in the coming years to dethrone bitcoin. It would be ironic if it was initially backed by bitcoin then destroyed it's creator like frankenstein.


I'm in hurry now but if you have a few minutes to spare just skim through episode 77 and/or 99 of "let's talk bitcoin". Somewhere Adam Back describe an hypothetical scenario where a side chains is used to migrate between from one btc version to another.

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

Activity: 1260



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:54:24 PM
 #14311


What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.

many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC.  possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk.

lol, SideChain is backed by bitcoin.  SideChain is protocol. SideChain is only temporary.  The only way sidechain can outperform Bitcoin is when Bitcoin security is broken and SC's is not.

edit:
And in this case, bitcoin will be death and no matter if there is SC or SC is not.
dariuss
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:58:49 PM
 #14312

how come bitcoin is staying at $400 and not rising?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:01:20 PM
 #14313

you're missing the overall pt.  it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage.  first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain.  then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain.  the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof.  the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.

anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here.  the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.

Everything they are developing is open source. They cannot block implementation of anything. It seems disingenuous to me, considering some of the answers given in the AMA, to suggest the BTC main core devs would implicitly hurt Bitcoin's development in favor of Blockstream's business. Additionally, any indication of unethical behavior by them could certainly lead to them losing their position as BTC main core developer.

They have specifically stated in the AMA they will NOT create their own altcoin or currency.

Also, your concern of financial incentives corrupting their actions is misguided. Do not forget that ALL of them have vested interest into Bitcoin already. They stand to make considerably more money creating sensible SC features that improve the Bitcoin economy.

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:08:22 PM
 #14314

What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown. Will bitcoin value suddenly evaporate as all the coins sublime into the new chain in a mad rush? One can imagine some amazing pump and dump opportunities for clever side chain developers to acquire an awful lot of bitcoins through this 'two way peg' mechanism. (Early adopters again wahey!) Or to actually kill bitcoin with if a superior chain emerges.

Any successful SC will benefit the Bitcoin economy and therefore it makes no sense to suggest banking system would get behind a SC in particular.

As for the bolded statement, this is true of any alt chain, sidechain or not. I don't see how sidechains would effectively assist and benefit pump & dump opportunities. A fool and his money are soon parted, no matter the way.

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:10:15 PM
 #14315

you're missing the overall pt.  it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage.  first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain.  then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain.  the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof.  the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.

anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here.  the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.

Everything they are developing is open source. They cannot block implementation of anything. It seems disingenuous to me, considering some of the answers given in the AMA, to suggest the BTC main core devs would implicitly hurt Bitcoin's development in favor of Blockstream's business. Additionally, any indication of unethical behavior by them could certainly lead to them losing their position as BTC main core developer.

They have specifically stated in the AMA they will NOT create their own altcoin or currency.

Also, your concern of financial incentives corrupting their actions is misguided. Do not forget that ALL of them have vested interest into Bitcoin already. They stand to make considerably more money creating sensible SC features that improve the Bitcoin economy.

look, i don't know how old you are, but what we're talking about here is A LOT of money.  the whole ethos of Bitcoin is as a trustless currency.  that currency depends on it's source code.  any changes to that code can change the economic assumptions and those correctly positioned can make LOTS.  to have core devs under the employment of a for-profit company is ridiculous.  it doesn't make any difference that they've behaved up to this point.  look what happened in 2008 in the GFC.  tremendous amounts of trust were lost in were supposed to be institutions to protect our form of capitalism.  didn't work out when the shit hit the fan did it?  are you willing to risk the entire Bitcoin system to have 5 devs who commit to the Bitcoin source while employed by Austin Hill, a hedge fund guy?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:12:12 PM
 #14316

As for the bolded statement, this is true of any alt chain, sidechain or not. I don't see how sidechains would effectively assist and benefit pump & dump opportunities. A fool and his money are soon parted, no matter the way.

it could even accelerate the sidescams since it will now be so easy to slide BTC over to that SC.  plus, this concept has the blessing of core devs, whom you so trust, right?
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:14:42 PM
 #14317


What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.

many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC.  possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk.

That is the point really - unnecessary risk to bitcoin, to implement 2.0 features. We should be just improving bitcoin instead. The real reason for this idea is the same reason as for everything. Profit for the side chain developers.

Has anyone a convincing argument why side chains are positive for bitcoin, rather than cryptocurrency in general? I think there is a danger we actually all collectively write the prophecy that a bitcoin 2.0 blockchain will come along and emerge in the coming years to dethrone bitcoin. It would be ironic if it was initially backed by bitcoin then destroyed it's creator like frankenstein.


I'm in hurry now but if you have a few minutes to spare just skim through episode 77 and/or 99 of "let's talk bitcoin". Somewhere Adam Back describe an hypothetical scenario where a side chains is used to migrate between from one btc version to another.

Thanks..will do.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:22:52 PM
 #14318


What happens if one of these side chain alts becomes very successful (for example is supported by the banking system) and begins to draw a large number of bitcoins in circulation into lockdown.

many of us will have a bad time running around gathering up cold storage wallets to transfer to the new SC.  possible privacy leaks galore, not to mention risk.

lol, SideChain is backed by bitcoin.  SideChain is protocol. SideChain is only temporary.  The only way sidechain can outperform Bitcoin is when Bitcoin security is broken and SC's is not.

That's right.  To state it clearly, there will be an arbitrage opportunity.  Buy BTC, transfer into SC, sell SCBTC, buy BTC.  So the price of bitcoin will be lifted with the added value sidechains bring.  In this sense inca, the child chain can never "destroy" Bitcoin even if it ends up carrying 99.9% of the transactions.

To address Cypherdoc and other people's "what if" questions about the future, "we" (as in the Bitcoin evangelizing crowd) have been selling bitcoin as the "TCP" (or "HTTP") of finance -- anything can be layered on it.  That is the "promise" of Bitcoin as a world currency.  But you can't really layer applications on top of it like you can TCP or HTTP, except in a very small 40 byte per txn area, and in the awkward colored coin concept.  Sure, you can make an independent app that happens to accept payment in Bitcoin, like a centralized storefront.  But that is hardly layered "on" the Bitcoin protocol.

Sidechains IS the technology that really lets us build anything "on" Bitcoin.  Because the value of Bitcoin is NOT in the code -- otherwise running on testnet and/or altcoins would be much more valuable.  The real value programmers want is having a digital, supply limited (etc etc) token with programmable behavior that HAS VALUE from day one.  (But right now Bitcoin does not really have "programmable behavior" -- all you can to is transfer it)

If sidechains don't happen I will still be invested in Bitcoin as a diversification especially given the indebtedness of important governments throughout the world.  However, I would revise my "end game" estimate downwards by 3-4 orders of magnitude (1000-10000x), esp. if the block size is also not increased.  I would expect, best case, Bitcoin to become crypto-"gold".  Held but rarely used.  Worst case, some highly functional altcoin takes over and BTC's value dwindles to 0.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:27:33 PM
 #14319


look, i don't know how old you are, but what we're talking about here is A LOT of money.  the whole ethos of Bitcoin is as a trustless currency.  that currency depends on it's source code.  any changes to that code can change the economic assumptions and those correctly positioned can make LOTS.  to have core devs under the employment of a for-profit company is ridiculous.  it doesn't make any difference that they've behaved up to this point.  look what happened in 2008 in the GFC.  tremendous amounts of trust were lost in were supposed to be institutions to protect our form of capitalism.  didn't work out when the shit hit the fan did it?  are you willing to risk the entire Bitcoin system to have 5 devs who commit to the Bitcoin source while employed by Austin Hill, a hedge fund guy?

how is it ridiculous if the for-profit company in question works to IMPROVE the Bitcoin technology and has EVERY incentive to do so in a legitimate community approved way?

comparison to 2008 is asinine. Bitcoin development is an open source process.

I repeat, these 5 devs have every incentive to work in a transparent and community focused manner. You are suggesting they will go rogue and commit damaging code to the Bitcoin main core and that the community, the miners, and everyone running a node will play along? This is tinfoil hat status AFAIC.

Attacking Austin Hill personally just because you dislike the guy isn't helping your cause either? I know some people who, contrary to you, have worked with Austin personally and can certainly vouch for him. It appears a great deal of industry people do so as well so right now, it seems to me you're alone in your corner, with Peter Todd maybe, trying to pin bad intentions to a person with nothing but words to back up your claims.

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:30:57 PM
 #14320

As for the bolded statement, this is true of any alt chain, sidechain or not. I don't see how sidechains would effectively assist and benefit pump & dump opportunities. A fool and his money are soon parted, no matter the way.

it could even accelerate the sidescams since it will now be so easy to slide BTC over to that SC.  plus, this concept has the blessing of core devs, whom you so trust, right?

Nonsense

First, it is already easy as it is to convert BTC into any other coin. Altcoin exchanges are readily available and require know KYC/AML hurdle to jump through to register.

Second, these devs are not responsible for the possibility that someone create "sidescams" and fool naive people into moving their BTC to this chain.

What you are saying is akin to suggesting Satoshi is to be held accountable for creating the concept allowing for scamcoins to thrive.


"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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 ... 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!