Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:31:28 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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] 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804977 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:30:09 PM
 #14321

lol, none of them wanted to tackle 3 of my questions and they got downvoted.  granted the last one was speculative but still:

[–]cypherdoc2 -1 points 2 hours ago

is there such a thing as overdevelopment?

Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money.

    permalink
    save
    edit
    delete
    reply

[–]cypherdoc2 -2 points 2 hours ago

let's say one SC 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 might be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.

how would you address this concern?

    permalink
    save
    edit
    delete
    reply

[–]cypherdoc2 -4 points 2 hours ago

i keep saying this but i don't think the market will like a constant loss of BTC over time from Sidescams. we already have a perception of not having enough coins from mainstream economists. just heard one say this last weekend at Hasher's United.

it could cause a paradox in price action; down. is this what we're seeing right now?

    permalink
    save
    edit
    delete
    reply
1481020288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020288
Reply with quote  #2

1481020288
Report to moderator
1481020288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020288
Reply with quote  #2

1481020288
Report to moderator
1481020288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020288
Reply with quote  #2

1481020288
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481020288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020288
Reply with quote  #2

1481020288
Report to moderator
1481020288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020288
Reply with quote  #2

1481020288
Report to moderator
1481020288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020288
Reply with quote  #2

1481020288
Report to moderator
pa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 484


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:31:04 PM
 #14322

Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.

That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Ideally at this point whatever feature made the sidechain successful would get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol.

But the issuers and holders of the sidechain might complain and try to stop that from happening.

Are the pegs between chains irrevocable? If not, what's to stop a side-chain dev from pumping the side-chain and then "trapping" bitcoins by revoking the outgoing peg?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:33:26 PM
 #14323

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. 

No but individual actors know, look at the DOW, and Bitcoin, I'll switch back to BTC when SC develop along the same risk model as NXT. Untill then SC sounds like Scam Colin and let's leave that domain to the risky investments in Alts, don't mess with Bitcoin core.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:33:45 PM
 #14324

Then if the side-coin becomes successful, BTC will move over up to the max supply issuance of the new coin. That part *does* boost bitcoin's purchasing power. But after that point, any further success of the side-coin in terms of purchasing power will not boost bitcoin, as far as I can tell. People would want the side-coin, but there's no built-in way to get it via bitcoin anymore, so at this point, it becomes the same as any other alt.

That's indeed only one scenario, but it seems to me that much of what sidechains boil down to is just optionally providing a built-in means of exchange that's not really all that different, economically, than existing alt-coin exchanges? What am I missing?
Ideally at this point whatever feature made the sidechain successful would get incorporated into the Bitcoin protocol.

But the issuers and holders of the sidechain might complain and try to stop that from happening.

Possible scenario
 -> quantum computer was built.
 -> there is quantum computer resistant sidechain
 -> panic :-)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:39:36 PM
 #14325

lol, none of them wanted to tackle 3 of my questions and they got downvoted.  granted the last one was speculative but still:

[–]cypherdoc2 -1 points 2 hours ago

is there such a thing as overdevelopment?

Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money.

    permalink
    save
    edit
    delete
    reply

[–]cypherdoc2 -2 points 2 hours ago

let's say one SC 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 might be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.

how would you address this concern?

    permalink
    save
    edit
    delete
    reply

[–]cypherdoc2 -4 points 2 hours ago

i keep saying this but i don't think the market will like a constant loss of BTC over time from Sidescams. we already have a perception of not having enough coins from mainstream economists. just heard one say this last weekend at Hasher's United.

it could cause a paradox in price action; down. is this what we're seeing right now?

    permalink
    save
    edit
    delete
    reply

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.

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:47:35 PM
 #14326

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

Quote
The federated peg approach necessarily compromises on trust, but requires no changes to
Bitcoin — only the participants need to agree to use it and only the participants take the costs
or risks of using it. Further, if someone wanted to prevent other people from using a sidechain they
could not do so: if the federated peg is used privately in a closed community, its use can be made
undetectable and uncensorable. This approach allows rapid deployment and experimentation and
550
will allow the community to gain confidence in pegged sidechains before adopting any changes to
the Bitcoin protocol.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2014, 07:48:26 PM
 #14327

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.

Giving people a blank check because we like them or because they've done good work previously is precisely the wrong thing to do.

Making sure that Blockstream is set up in a way that doesn't create perverse incentives is as much for their protection as ours.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 07:56:44 PM
 #14328

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.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:14:16 PM
 #14329

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: 1064



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:20:24 PM
 #14330

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: 980


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:24:36 PM
 #14331

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: 1106


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:27:35 PM
 #14332

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
 #14333

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
 #14334


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: 980


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:41:09 PM
 #14335


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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:44:35 PM
 #14336

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: 1106


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:48:12 PM
 #14337


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: 1064



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:54:24 PM
 #14338


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: 78


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 08:58:49 PM
 #14339

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:01:20 PM
 #14340

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!