Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:41:01 PM *
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 ... 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] 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804279 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:10:05 AM
 #14441

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare.

Bandwidth doesn't increase according to Moore's.
At best, Neilson's
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

Your source says "10% less than Moore's law." That's not really much difference. Still a lot and still exponential, for now.
1480884061
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884061

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884061
Reply with quote  #2

1480884061
Report to moderator
1480884061
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884061

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884061
Reply with quote  #2

1480884061
Report to moderator
1480884061
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884061

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884061
Reply with quote  #2

1480884061
Report to moderator
Even if you use Bitcoin through Tor, the way transactions are handled by the network makes anonymity difficult to achieve. Do not expect your transactions to be anonymous unless you really know what you're doing.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480884061
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480884061

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480884061
Reply with quote  #2

1480884061
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:13:06 AM
 #14442

That would only work if ALL users decided to move to SCbtc and no user wanted to buy BTC under any circumstances, even with spreads in the thousands of dollars or more.  If the tech were that far superior then SCbtc deserves to win out.  In reality, there will most likely be debate over which system is better and not all users will convert, resulting in normal arbitration.
People would certainly buy BTC if scBTC were worth more, but only at something less than the scBTC value in order to convert it and make a profit. There would be no reason to convert back

Yes there is reason to convert back.  You sell the scBTC at a profit and take the profit and buy more BTC to convert.  Rinse and repeat.

No that doesn't work once all the BTC are converted. The only ones you could possibly find to buy for conversion would be newly mined coins, and miners would have no reason to sell them to you. They can just convert themselves (which is what they would do).

The arbitrage you is exactly what would happen, but it would quickly convert all the BTC until there were none left, then the main chain would simply die (other than for mining purposes).


That is a bold assumption, pun intended.  If I had a satoshi for every time someone said the price of bitcoin could go to 0, then I would be rich... as I said before, if the technology of SCbtc is that great, then it deserves to win.

I never said the price goes to zoro. The price would be approximately the same as scBTC, obviously, since you can convert. There would just be no reason to hold BTC. If scBTC offers some advantage to enough people, you might as well convert it.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:15:40 AM
 #14443

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare.

Bandwidth doesn't increase according to Moore's.
At best, Neilson's
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

Your source says "10% less than Moore's law." That's not really much difference. Still a lot and still exponential, for now.



Yeah, indeed. Gavin quoted Nielson's as 50%/yr in his scalability roadmap post. Works out to pretty close to Moore's doubling every 18months. I think the error surrounding the assumptions these "laws" fundamentally make likely dwarfs whatever difference there is between Moore and Nielson growth rates anyways.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:18:16 AM
 #14444

The former: After time N for the whole chain, global exchange rate goes to 1 BTC = 0 Sidecoin. I see nothing preventing the exchange rate function from being able to be specified this way.

So a one-way peg with limited supply

I don't see this type of scheme gaining much traction at all so I see no value in entertaining this proposition.


"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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:20:23 AM
 #14445

I never said the price goes to zoro. The price would be approximately the same as scBTC, obviously, since you can convert. There would just be no reason to hold BTC. If scBTC offers some advantage to enough people, you might as well convert it.

which is why scBTC is better implemented as an altcoin.

if you have the network and the miners on your side what's stopping you ?

"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
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:28:48 AM
 #14446

The former: After time N for the whole chain, global exchange rate goes to 1 BTC = 0 Sidecoin. I see nothing preventing the exchange rate function from being able to be specified this way.

So a one-way peg with limited supply

I don't see this type of scheme gaining much traction at all so I see no value in entertaining this proposition.



Well, a two-way peg that degrades into a one way peg, but yeah, I agree it probably wouldn't gain much traction in the first place. It'll be interesting to see what sidechains start getting proposed and what their exchange rate functions look like. I expect they'll be pretty straight-forward.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:29:31 AM
 #14447


The Blockstream team has made it CLEAR they have NO interest into alternative currencies built on a sidechain. This is absolutely not their vision of sidechain and it is explained repeatedly in the white paper.

Quote
Adam Back
sidechains are a generic extension mechanism. we hope many people make use of the sidechain extension mechanism to add innovative new features centered around the bitcoin currency.




from the White Paper Appendix C
Quote
Atomic swaps
Once a sidechain is operational, it is possible for users to exchange coins atomically between chains,
without using the peg.
It sounds like altcoins to me.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:37:28 AM
 #14448

I never said the price goes to zoro. The price would be approximately the same as scBTC, obviously, since you can convert. There would just be no reason to hold BTC. If scBTC offers some advantage to enough people, you might as well convert it.

which is why scBTC is better implemented as an altcoin.

if you have the network and the miners on your side what's stopping you ?

Since I don't really see much difference between altcoins and side chains other than how they are being marketed, I guess I agree with you.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:41:26 AM
 #14449


The Blockstream team has made it CLEAR they have NO interest into alternative currencies built on a sidechain. This is absolutely not their vision of sidechain and it is explained repeatedly in the white paper.

Quote
Adam Back
sidechains are a generic extension mechanism. we hope many people make use of the sidechain extension mechanism to add innovative new features centered around the bitcoin currency.




from the White Paper Appendix C
Quote
Atomic swaps
Once a sidechain is operational, it is possible for users to exchange coins atomically between chains,
without using the peg.
It sounds like altcoins to me.

Yes of course it is possible to create "altcoins" or, commonly referred to in the paper, Issued Assets.

My point is the main innovation they are trying to put forward, if we can trust their writing, is using application specific features of altcoins without having to issue a new currency.

Quote
The altcoin approach of creating a new cryptocurrency just to introduce new features creates uncertainty for everyone looking at cryptocurrencies from the outside. There seems to be no natural stopping point, each fork can be forked again, ad infinitum. This creates both market and development fragmentation. We think that for cryptocurrencies to be successful as a whole we must build network effect, not fragmentation.

Quote
To accomplish this we propose technology to enable new cryptocurrency networks that do not need new cryptocurrencies
http://www.blockstream.com/2014/10/23/why-we-are-co-founders-of-blockstream/

The whole point of this exercise is to leverage Bitcoin's network effect and sound economic foundations while fostering innovation from within.

"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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 06:43:13 AM
 #14450

I never said the price goes to zoro. The price would be approximately the same as scBTC, obviously, since you can convert. There would just be no reason to hold BTC. If scBTC offers some advantage to enough people, you might as well convert it.

which is why scBTC is better implemented as an altcoin.

if you have the network and the miners on your side what's stopping you ?

Since I don't really see much difference between altcoins and side chains other than how they are being marketed, I guess I agree with you.



Have you read the "Applications" section of the white paper?

Quote
The first application, already mentioned many times, is simply creating altchains with coins that
derive their scarcity and supply from Bitcoin. By using a sidechain which carries bitcoins rather
than a completely new currency, one can avoid the thorny problems of initial distribution and
market vulnerability, as well as barriers to adoption for new users, who no longer need to locate
a trustworthy marketplace or invest in mining hardware to obtain altcoin assets.

It essentially allows for Bitcoin to be used on altcoin chains while able to move back and forth to the original, parent Bitcoin blockchain


"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
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1199


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 07:16:02 AM
 #14451

If the conflict of interest can be addressed clearly, the sidechains will be good for Bitcoin ecosystem and the exchange rate of it. Cryptocurrency like Bitcoin will need its own infrastructure for trading and debt proof and share proof to circumvent the legal restriction from government without trusting too many 3rd exchange service.  The better infrastructure will make Bitcoin more usefully money, which is a better money.

I agree. Also, I think if bitcoin doesn't adopt sidechains perhaps litecoin will. After that, litecoin would be IMO the main crypto.

▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 07:20:08 AM
 #14452

I'm in justusranvier's camp on this one. Not raising blocksize, *at least* roughly allowing for Moore's Law, seems insane, and would just drive some alt to gain significant marketshare.

Bandwidth doesn't increase according to Moore's.
At best, Neilson's
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

Your source says "10% less than Moore's law." That's not really much difference. Still a lot and still exponential, for now.


Right, That is just the first of many criticisms I have of the current proposals.  
I don't like extrapolations used for predictive purposes.
They assume too much.
I'd prefer a method of rightsizing max block size through use of the data of the future which may be derived from the block chain through sums of fees or block size.
This can be done much in the same way that difficulty is generated.
The risks of doing it in this better way may be that it could create some perverse incentives for folks that wanted to "game" the metric.
I'd like to see a proposal that doesn't come with what amounts to a guarantee that it will be wrong because it relies on a guess made years ago.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 09:03:48 AM
 #14453

if i were setting up a SC, i'd just fork Bitcoin, add an anonymity function, then let it run.  there'd be a good chance i could get a full on rush into my SC.
And since the SC is two-way pegged, that would be great.

In fact, I hope this will be one of the first SC ever made, that would be the right way to add an anonymization layer onto bitcoin. I tried to setup something similar in the past but I could not solve all the details that the paper instead correctly addresses.

Ultimately, SC are what will completely destroy all altcoins and will give more and more value to Bitcoin, exactly because to the hard-pegging of the currency: what happens now is that for each new scamcoin that is launched every bitcoin holder must choose if part some of his bitcoin stash to buy some of the new coins because they may become more useful and hence more valuable of bitcoin in the future.

But with sidechains there is not such dilemma: since a well defined protocol to switch coins to/from every SC is in place I can wait to enter the SC only when, and if, the thing is useful for me, and not a moment before (and with the possibility to come back, too).

With sidechains we can hope that a new one will be highly successful without the fear that we have not bought his coins in time, because we already have them (of course supposing we are invested in bitcoin), and for all of them (all of the sidecoins that will ever be made).

So, people like Satoshi, Cypherdoc and other highly invested in Bitcoin should be very, very grateful for sidechains because that's the best opportunity we have to maintain the relevance of bitcoin (and hence his value) in the future.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 09:26:19 AM
 #14454

Ultimately, SC are what will completely destroy all altcoins and will give more and more value to Bitcoin, exactly because to the hard-pegging of the currency: what happens now is that for each new scamcoin that is launched every bitcoin holder must choose if part some of his bitcoin stash to buy some of the new coins because they may become more useful and hence more valuable of bitcoin in the future.

Oh come on. Alts in the aggregate are only 10% of Bitcoin's value, and the biggest alt has no innovative features at all. It clearly exists for some completely different reason other than that addressed by side chains and therefore is unlikely to be affected.

This obsession with alts is very unhealthy and unhelpful. Focus on the value that sidechains (or anything else) could potentially add to Bitcoin by allowing faster and safer development. There is a lot more than 10% to be gained there.



solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 09:34:50 AM
 #14455

Ultimately, SC are what will completely destroy all altcoins and will give more and more value to Bitcoin, exactly because to the hard-pegging of the currency: what happens now is that for each new scamcoin that is launched every bitcoin holder must choose if part some of his bitcoin stash to buy some of the new coins because they may become more useful and hence more valuable of bitcoin in the future.

Oh come on. Alts in the aggregate are only 10% of Bitcoin's value, and the biggest alt has no innovative features at all. It clearly exists for some completely different reason other than that addressed by side chains and therefore is unlikely to be affected.

This obsession with alts is very unhealthy and unhelpful. Focus on the value that sidechains (or anything else) could potentially add to Bitcoin by allowing faster and safer development. There is a lot more than 10% to be gained there.

That 10% was 5% for a long time, until recent months. So alts are gaining ground. Bitcoin needs the enhanced features SC promises, but importantly, scope for scalability as well.

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 09:50:27 AM
 #14456

SC won't solve Bitcoin's scalability because they will optimize spamming Bitcoin for metadata. We'll be right back to the block size argument again. In fact, they will make it happen much faster.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 09:50:50 AM
 #14457

Ultimately, SC are what will completely destroy all altcoins and will give more and more value to Bitcoin, exactly because to the hard-pegging of the currency: what happens now is that for each new scamcoin that is launched every bitcoin holder must choose if part some of his bitcoin stash to buy some of the new coins because they may become more useful and hence more valuable of bitcoin in the future.

Oh come on. Alts in the aggregate are only 10% of Bitcoin's value, and the biggest alt has no innovative features at all. It clearly exists for some completely different reason other than that addressed by side chains and therefore is unlikely to be affected.

This obsession with alts is very unhealthy and unhelpful. Focus on the value that sidechains (or anything else) could potentially add to Bitcoin by allowing faster and safer development. There is a lot more than 10% to be gained there.

That 10% was 5% for a long time, until recent months. So alts are gaining ground. Bitcoin needs the enhanced features SC promises, but importantly, scope for scalability as well.

just for add a few more data points:


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

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 09:52:11 AM
 #14458

Ultimately, SC are what will completely destroy all altcoins and will give more and more value to Bitcoin, exactly because to the hard-pegging of the currency: what happens now is that for each new scamcoin that is launched every bitcoin holder must choose if part some of his bitcoin stash to buy some of the new coins because they may become more useful and hence more valuable of bitcoin in the future.

Oh come on. Alts in the aggregate are only 10% of Bitcoin's value, and the biggest alt has no innovative features at all. It clearly exists for some completely different reason other than that addressed by side chains and therefore is unlikely to be affected.

This obsession with alts is very unhealthy and unhelpful. Focus on the value that sidechains (or anything else) could potentially add to Bitcoin by allowing faster and safer development. There is a lot more than 10% to be gained there.

That 10% was 5% for a long time, until recent months. So alts are gaining ground. Bitcoin needs the enhanced features SC promises, but importantly, scope for scalability as well.

I'm not sure what time frame you are using. At one point it was 0%, so certainly on that basis they are gaining, in some sense.

Ignoring the extreme peak in late 2013, for several months over the past year BTC was roughly $8 billion and LTC was $300-400m, which makes LTC almost 5% by itself.

I'd like to see those numbers though.

My intuition is that the opposite has happened, that alts are slowly losing ground, at least over the past year or so. I can't believe anything close to a doubling of share has happened in recent history.

EDIT: I see from the graph in a subsequent post that my intuition was correct. It isn't entirely up to date but shows alts at 4%. It's really quite silly for that to motivate anything at all about Bitcoin development. For sidechains to be a good idea they had better be a good idea independent of alts.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 10:00:50 AM
 #14459


Nice to see someone standing up for the cause on that SC AMA there Cyph.  Go get 'em Wink


solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 10:08:01 AM
 #14460

SC won't solve Bitcoin's scalability because they will optimize spamming Bitcoin for metadata. We'll be right back to the block size argument again. In fact, they will make it happen much faster.

Oh. I completely agree! My sentence earlier was poorly worded, I meant that scaling is important (whether or not SC happens).

EDIT: I see from the graph in a subsequent post that my intuition was correct. It isn't entirely up to date but shows alts at 4%. It's really quite silly for that to motivate anything at all about Bitcoin development. For sidechains to be a good idea they had better be a good idea independent of alts


Yes, the graph is interesting, but for a month, at least, it has been hovering near 90%, where it still stands (4832M / 5342M).
http://coinmarketcap.com/#USD
Assuming the same underlying data is used by both sources.
Note: if Bitshares, Counterparty and Mastercoin are included in Bitcoin, then it is 91%

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 ... 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!