Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 03:57:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:51:29 PM
 #14461


Right. Then there is no mining in the SC? How are SC blockchains built?

Not quite, I too am having problem wraping my head about how exactly this would work but I believe this to be the relevant part in the whitepaper :

Quote
Because miners receive compensation from the block subsidy and fees of each chain they provide work for, it is in their economic interest to switch between providing DMMSes for different similarly-valued blockchains following changes in difficulty and movements in market value.
One response is that some blockchains have tweaked their blockheader definition such that it includes a part of Bitcoin’s DMMS, thus enabling miners to provide a single DMMS that commits to Bitcoin as well as one or more other blockchains — this is called merged mining. Since merged mining enables re-use of work for multiple blockchains, miners are able to claim compensation from each blockchain that they provide DMMSes for.

Note that the referred "block subsidy" exists only if the altchain issues its own native currency (not a 1:1 peg)

Quote
Subsidy. A sidechain could also issue its own separate native currency as reward, effectively forming an altcoin. However, these coins would have a free-floating value and as a result would not solve the volatility and market fragmentation issues with altcoins.

"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
1513569445
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513569445

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513569445
Reply with quote  #2

1513569445
Report to moderator
1513569445
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513569445

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513569445
Reply with quote  #2

1513569445
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513569445
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513569445

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513569445
Reply with quote  #2

1513569445
Report to moderator
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:08:11 PM
 #14462


Right. Then there is no mining in the SC? How are SC blockchains built?

Not quite, I too am having problem wraping my head about how exactly this would work but I believe this to be the relevant part in the whitepaper :

Quote
Because miners receive compensation from the block subsidy and fees of each chain they provide work for, it is in their economic interest to switch between providing DMMSes for different similarly-valued blockchains following changes in difficulty and movements in market value.
One response is that some blockchains have tweaked their blockheader definition such that it includes a part of Bitcoin’s DMMS, thus enabling miners to provide a single DMMS that commits to Bitcoin as well as one or more other blockchains — this is called merged mining. Since merged mining enables re-use of work for multiple blockchains, miners are able to claim compensation from each blockchain that they provide DMMSes for.

Note that the referred "block subsidy" exists only if the altchain issues its own native currency (not a 1:1 peg)

Quote
Subsidy. A sidechain could also issue its own separate native currency as reward, effectively forming an altcoin. However, these coins would have a free-floating value and as a result would not solve the volatility and market fragmentation issues with altcoins.
Yeah. The secondary currency would likely threaten the security of the entrenched bitcoins by having an effect on hashrate through price manipulation. I suppose if the altcoin was used only for microtransactions it might make sense since the mining is subsidized by merge miners.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:16:10 PM
 #14463


No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.


Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.

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

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:20:11 PM
 #14464


No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.


Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.
Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:33:12 PM
 #14465


No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.


Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.
Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins.

Technically bitcoins still exist, but economically they don't exist until SCbtc is converted back.  You can't buy or sell BTC that is in the form of SCbtc, although the underlying peg should be understood by the market. 

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

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:35:24 PM
 #14466


No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.


Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.
Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins.

Technically bitcoins still exist, but economically they don't exist until SCbtc is converted back.  You can't buy or sell BTC that is in the form of SCbtc, although the underlying peg should be understood by the market. 
Sure you can. If you have a 1:1 SC coin, then an exchange can do the alchemy to convert the coin to sell in either form because exchanges are off blockchain.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:39:59 PM
 #14467


No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.


Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.
Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins.

Technically bitcoins still exist, but economically they don't exist until SCbtc is converted back.  You can't buy or sell BTC that is in the form of SCbtc, although the underlying peg should be understood by the market. 
Sure you can. If you have a 1:1 SC coin, then an exchange can do the alchemy to convert the coin to sell in either form because exchanges are off blockchain.

I get what you are saying but Smooth says you can't arbitrage between SCbtc and BTC because if SCbtc is superior, then no one will own BTC.

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

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
 #14468


No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.


Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.
Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins.

Technically bitcoins still exist, but economically they don't exist until SCbtc is converted back.  You can't buy or sell BTC that is in the form of SCbtc, although the underlying peg should be understood by the market. 
Sure you can. If you have a 1:1 SC coin, then an exchange can do the alchemy to convert the coin to sell in either form because exchanges are off blockchain.

I get what you are saying but Smooth says you can't arbitrage between SCbtc and BTC because if SCbtc is superior, then no one will own BTC.
You can't arbitrage 1:1. That's why I don't think non 1:1 SC will work.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:49:45 PM
 #14469

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over? 

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

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

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
 #14470

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over? 

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.
Nothing will completely replace Bitcoin. They will have to have legacy support because multisig and lost coins. It doesn't matter if one becomes bigger than Bitcoin because it's pegged.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:05:10 PM
 #14471

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:15:13 PM
 #14472

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out
Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:19:15 PM
 #14473

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out
Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:31:35 PM
 #14474


No trade does not mean the price is zero, it simply means there is trade. For example, in a speculative market you would get no trading if everyone agrees on the same price.

Anyway, as I said mining would still happen, and you could potentially buy from miners, but only at better price than what they could get by converting to higher-valued scBTC. There is no arbitrage though, the mining rewards would simply be sought out for their conversion value and miners would compete harder for them, driving up difficulty.


Explain to me how you price something that doesn't exist.  If ALL BTC are converted to SCbtc, then that means no more BTC exists.  If no more BTC exist then there are no more sellers.  Buyers can't buy when there are no sellers and the price is effectively 0.
Bitcoins still exist, they can be unlocked by destroying (or locking) your SC coins, effectively swapping keys with the bitcoins. Their location can still be seen on the blockchain. Really it would drive Bitcoin price up, not down because it is the only secure exchange between SC coins.

Technically bitcoins still exist, but economically they don't exist until SCbtc is converted back.  You can't buy or sell BTC that is in the form of SCbtc, although the underlying peg should be understood by the market. 
Sure you can. If you have a 1:1 SC coin, then an exchange can do the alchemy to convert the coin to sell in either form because exchanges are off blockchain.

I get what you are saying but Smooth says you can't arbitrage between SCbtc and BTC because if SCbtc is superior, then no one will own BTC.

I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:39:19 PM
 #14475

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out
Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.
They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth.

I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.
What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 05:03:31 PM
 #14476

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out
Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.
They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth.

well hey, devs gotta dev and devs gotta get paid.  so in that sense, we've made some progress.  but as i said, my concern is trying to figure out if there is some edge case that can hurt Bitcoin.  

Quote
I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.
What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin.

miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity.  and that would be for another SC that takes my SC  with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that.  then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again!  what a hassle and potential security risk.

if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect.  as they defect, miners would have to follow.  no?

money always seeks the place that treats it best.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 05:10:28 PM
 #14477


miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity.  and that would be for another SC that takes my SC  with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that.  then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again!  what a hassle and potential security risk.

if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect.  as they defect, miners would have to follow.  no?

money always seeks the place that treats it best.
There's the rub. They need to create some magic that independently converts coins back and forth. BTC must remain legacy for this scheme to work and must be encoded into the protocol. Of course anything could happen, but preserving BTC legacy cold storage must be ensured. It may become cumbersome and slow. Perhaps they will change their protocol to deny Bitcoin transactions except for conversion and it takes a month, but all Bitcoins must be accounted for in the end.

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

Activity: 1848


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 05:13:18 PM
 #14478

I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".

These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need:
1)  open source code
2)  consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power

Quote
Again,  why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?  

This is not so black and white.  I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk.  Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point.  I don't see why it couldn't happen.

Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades.

brg444, I'm past the part  about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC  proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a  for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible.

On planes all day so in and out
Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it.

I could go for that.

Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins.
They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth.

well hey, devs gotta dev and devs gotta get paid.  so in that sense, we've made some progress.  but as i said, my concern is trying to figure out if there is some edge case that can hurt Bitcoin.  

Quote
I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.
What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin.

miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity.  and that would be for another SC that takes my SC  with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that.  then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again!  what a hassle and potential security risk.

if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect.  as they defect, miners would have to follow.  no?

money always seeks the place that treats it best.

I really doubt anything will come along that is considered "better" for everyone.  Anonymity, for example, is well below scarcity, security, and historical record on my list of priorities.  But the thing with SC as opposed to altcoins is that bitcoin the currency stays the same.  It is only bitcoin the blockchain that is in danger of being replaced.  And even if it is replaced, bitcoin the blockchain will still be mined heavily at least until the subsidy dries up because new coins can be moved to whatever chain is successful.

SC also provides a way forward scalablilty wise that doesn't require a VERY controversial hard fork.

In the end, any opposition is irrelevant.  This is a soft fork change, which means any single miner can choose to adopt it and remain compatible with the existing infrastructure.  Other miners won't add the new transactions since they are "nonstandard", but they will validate blocks containing them.  If use increases to the point that they are missing out on fees, you bet your ass they will jump on board.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 05:15:57 PM
 #14479

I have spent some time reading the Reddit AMA and I'm sorry to say but it was disappointing to witness the childish stubbordness in your numerous comment in the face of considerably knowledgeable adversity. Your back must be aching from all this heavy lifting cause there were some serious moving of the goal post. You were corrected many time for different false assumption that you keep spreading around on this forum which I consider very concerning misinformation.


in that thread, here's my scores:

upvotes=50
downvotes=11
0 points=7

seems, on balance, you're the one with the distorted perspective.
BldSwtTrs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 903


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 05:18:20 PM
 #14480

I don't understand how the peg will work.

Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to some sidecoin, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.

So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 ... 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!