Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 04:59:50 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 ... 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 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013875 times)
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:31:23 PM
 #14321

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?

Ok so some people should hire one or two of them away from Blockstream.  What's ridiculous is that large holders expect these people to work for free -- AND that there are so few core developers.

Don't fight to squelch proposed technological innovation just because you are afraid of the human political/legal/social organization that coalesced to implement it.  Keep in mind that this idea was proposed long before this organization existed...
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.
1511542791
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511542791

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511542791
Reply with quote  #2

1511542791
Report to moderator
1511542791
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511542791

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511542791
Reply with quote  #2

1511542791
Report to moderator
1511542791
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511542791

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511542791
Reply with quote  #2

1511542791
Report to moderator
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:33:03 PM
 #14322

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?

Besides true anonymity or stupidity, we dont know because we arent psychic. But the point is that this development addresses future unknowns in a really amazing way.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 23, 2014, 09:33:44 PM
 #14323

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.
If we're not going to spin words around, then please start by not spinning mine.

I observed a potential problem, and I give a set of conditions which would reduce or eliminate my concerns:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhp60y?context=3

Note that I haven't heard anyone say that the conditions I put forward are unreasonable.

This isn't "implying conspiracy."
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:35:04 PM
 #14324

This isn't "implying conspiracy."

 Grin

touché, sorry my english is a little rough sometimes  Undecided

"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
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:36:32 PM
 #14325

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.

Markets and their capitalizations are a funny thing. They are illusory. We talk about bitcoin's current cap as being the price of a single coin multiplied by all the coins in existence. But the reality is far from that as the price is manipulated from, say, 1166 to 350 by a fraction of a few % of the coins in existence, or relatively modest amounts of fiat currency (millions to tens of millions of dollars only) on the way up.

This concept of a 'two way peg' between bitcoin blockchain and side chain is really an exchange. The terms of how many SCBTC can be acquired/released by locking/unlocking actual BTC are flexible and could float, for example based upon fiat exchange value of SCBTC or BTC. If SCBTC use becomes prevalent then it is possible that as the value of BTC falls, SCBTC rises, until BTC is not a store of value.

What you say (emboldened) is probably accurate. But what we care about is bitcoin maintaining value, as it's algorithmic scarcity was designed to do. That is the reason we hold it!
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:38:41 PM
 #14326

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.



As scarcity increases, so does the price.... Mtgox was an exchange... that has nothing to do with a protocol and its security. You should rethink a bit of what you just said here.




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

Activity: 1148


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:52:16 PM
 #14327

Worst case, some highly functional altcoin takes over and BTC's value dwindles to 0.

BTC's network value is almost too large to fail at this point.  There is so much investment in BTC that if it fails, all crypto will fail with it.  What I would like to see from Sidechains is the ability to 2-way peg current alts to block chain.  I think Blockstream should employ someone who's sole purpose is to help Alt's peg to BTC via Sidechain.  Imagine having the functionality of Alt's tied to BTC blockchain.  Anyway, I'm very excited about Sidechains.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:53:14 PM
 #14328

As scarcity increases, so does the price.... Mtgox was an exchange... that has nothing to do with a protocol and its security. You should rethink a bit of what you just said here.

I agree scarcity drives price when demand exists. It is why I speculatively hold bitcoin right now. What will drive the demand for bitcoin if everyone moves to a bitcoin 2.0 chain?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 09:56:13 PM
 #14329

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.

Markets and their capitalizations are a funny thing. They are illusory. We talk about bitcoin's current cap as being the price of a single coin multiplied by all the coins in existence. But the reality is far from that as the price is manipulated from, say, 1166 to 350 by a fraction of a few % of the coins in existence, or relatively modest amounts of fiat currency (millions to tens of millions of dollars only) on the way up.

This concept of a 'two way peg' between bitcoin blockchain and side chain is really an exchange. The terms of how many SCBTC can be acquired/released by locking/unlocking actual BTC are flexible and could float, for example based upon fiat exchange value of SCBTC or BTC. If SCBTC use becomes prevalent then it is possible that as the value of BTC falls, SCBTC rises, until BTC is not a store of value.

What you say (emboldened) is probably accurate. But what we care about is bitcoin maintaining value, as it's algorithmic scarcity was designed to do. That is the reason we hold it!

I'm sure 99% SCs will use 1:1 conversion rate and no new SCBTC will be generated ... you will still have your bitcoins, but few will be locked in "fast transfer" sidechain  ... you will have some locked in "exchage" sidechain ... and some in your private business sidechains (not public sidechains)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:07:50 PM
 #14330


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?

there is the potential to implement things that will benefit the company.  why can't you see this?  we should avoid if at all possible compromising situations.  5 devs under one roof is not the answer, imo.  if they were split up individually, then fine.
Quote
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.

how can you assure that they won't?  simply b/c they haven't?  that's naive.
Quote
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.

you're putting words in my mouth.  i never said i don't like Hill. 

the fact that Hill and Back did miss early adoption of Bitcoin needs to be considered.  they probably don't have much in the way of BTC.  this could change all that for them so i don't blame them for taking this shot if they can get ppl like you to buy in.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:13:58 PM
 #14331

What's ridiculous is that large holders expect these people to work for free -- AND that there are so few core developers.

i don't.  but spread their employment around if possible.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:14:51 PM
 #14332

I can imagine "Banks will create their own SideChain"

 - only authorized party will be able (one of bank) to create transactions in their BankSideChain (it will run SC on their VPN  read-only-mode, you can look at chain, but you cannot ceate transaction).
 - you will be able to exchange their tokes(BANK_Token) for fiat (if you go to bank)
 - and you will be able to buy this tokens on decentralized exchange (exchange bitcoins for ExchangeBTC and then ExchangeBTC to BANK_Token)

inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:19:34 PM
 #14333

I'm sure 99% SCs will use 1:1 conversion rate and no new SCBTC will be generated ... you will still have your bitcoins, but few will be locked in "fast transfer" sidechain  ... you will have some locked in "exchage" sidechain ... and some in your private business sidechains (not public sidechains)

You may be right. I was just thinking through various possibilities that side chains presents, such as whether they pose a risk to bitcoin, which I still think they may do.

Once this is enabled any side chain can be implemented without permission, of any kind whatsoever. Is it a bit naive perhaps to think that only a chain composed of locked bitcoins can exist?

Why don't we clone ethereum or counter party and simply run it centralised as a fast transfer side chain off bitcoin? We can give ourselves 50% of the ether initially and let the next 50% come from locked coins. A pre side mine if you like. As soon as a decent number of coins are locked into our chain we can just cash out. Or simply vary the number of SCBTC given per locked BTC so the first adopters get more of the pie.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:21:19 PM
 #14334

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.

Markets and their capitalizations are a funny thing. They are illusory. We talk about bitcoin's current cap as being the price of a single coin multiplied by all the coins in existence. But the reality is far from that as the price is manipulated from, say, 1166 to 350 by a fraction of a few % of the coins in existence, or relatively modest amounts of fiat currency (millions to tens of millions of dollars only) on the way up.

This concept of a 'two way peg' between bitcoin blockchain and side chain is really an exchange. The terms of how many SCBTC can be acquired/released by locking/unlocking actual BTC are flexible and could float, for example based upon fiat exchange value of SCBTC or BTC. If SCBTC use becomes prevalent then it is possible that as the value of BTC falls, SCBTC rises, until BTC is not a store of value.

What you say (emboldened) is probably accurate. But what we care about is bitcoin maintaining value, as it's algorithmic scarcity was designed to do. That is the reason we hold it!

I'm sure 99% SCs will use 1:1 conversion rate and no new SCBTC will be generated ... you will still have your bitcoins, but few will be locked in "fast transfer" sidechain  ... you will have some locked in "exchage" sidechain ... and some in your private business sidechains (not public sidechains)

Yes, the conversion ratio AFAIK has to be algorithmically defined.  So even if its not 1:1 that fact is irrelevant.   If its 1:10 then its 10:1 to go back.  

Inca, the number of BTC that are put on the sidechain is irrelevant.  As long as there is a single Satoshi left "unlocked" on the bitcoin chain, that satoshi can be transferred into the sidechain for SCBTC.  So that Satoshi is worth its value in SCBTC.  As long as SCBTC has value, BTC would be a store of that value.

You're practically arguing against yourself here.  If some awesomely functional chain existed that had the potential to destroy bitcoin's value, would you prefer it to be an altcoin where none of your BTC transfers or would you prefer that it be a sidechain?  If the functionality was really that compelling you can be sure that it would eventually out-compete Bitcoin -- it just may take a few years longer as an altcoin.
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288

Enabling the maximal migration


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:22:00 PM
 #14335

As scarcity increases, so does the price.... Mtgox was an exchange... that has nothing to do with a protocol and its security. You should rethink a bit of what you just said here.

I agree scarcity drives price when demand exists. It is why I speculatively hold bitcoin right now. What will drive the demand for bitcoin if everyone moves to a bitcoin 2.0 chain?

We arent talking about 2.0 chains (like ethereum) we are talking about sidechains. They exist on the bitcoin blockchain.

Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:27:10 PM
 #14336

how can you assure that they won't?  simply b/c they haven't?  that's naive.

Because it's open source

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:28:24 PM
 #14337

i'm missing something here.

why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange?  and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC?  if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.

the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:28:52 PM
 #14338

I'm sure 99% SCs will use 1:1 conversion rate and no new SCBTC will be generated ... you will still have your bitcoins, but few will be locked in "fast transfer" sidechain  ... you will have some locked in "exchage" sidechain ... and some in your private business sidechains (not public sidechains)

We can give ourselves 50% of the ether initially and let the next 50% come from locked coins. A pre side mine if you like. As soon as a decent number of coins are locked into our chain we can just cash out.

You certainly could.  You could unlock (get on the bitcoin chain) exactly as many BTC as were locked regardless of how many ether you created.  So you could leave a bunch of bagholders on the sidechain.

How is this any different from Mt Gox, Moolah, altcoin pump and dump, etc?

Sidechains don't magically make people honest.


But one additional point: the "bagholders" on the sidechain now have coins whose value would float relative to bitcoin (there is no backing BTC).  So what they are left with is better than Gox or Moolah -- they are left with a functioning altcoin that presumably has some utility to them or they would never have moved BTC there in the first place.  A similar result could happen if someone 51%ed the chain and unlocked the backing BTC.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:32:04 PM
 #14339

i'm missing something here.

why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange?  and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC?  if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.

the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.

Why "forced" to transfer?

Nobody is forced.  But if BTC owners could sell their BTC for $400 (say) and scBTC for $425, then arbitragers would naturally buy BTC, convert it to scBTC and sell it, making $25 (or the opposite).  So the price will never diverge significantly. 

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
October 23, 2014, 10:34:39 PM
 #14340

i'm missing something here.

why can't the scBTC develop an independent value in USD on their own on an exchange?  and if that value starts going up relative to the BTC value b/c the SC turns out to be better functionally, then why wouldn't every BTC owner be forced to transfer their BTC over to scBTC along with a migration of direct mining hashpower to the SC?  if the SC is better, the difference in value btwn BTC and scBTC can't be arbitraged away.

the end result being a destroyed Bitcoin and a "new" Sidechain dominance.

Why "forced" to transfer?

Nobody is forced.  But if BTC owners could sell their BTC for $400 (say) and scBTC for $425, then arbitragers would naturally buy BTC, convert it to scBTC and sell it, making $25 (or the opposite).  So the price will never diverge significantly.  


There should always be an scBTC discount based upon the market-determined probability that the SC will crash and burn.

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 ... 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!