Bitcoin Forum
May 29, 2017, 09:59:31 AM *
News: If the forum does not load normally for you, please send me a traceroute.
 
   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 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1906738 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
 #14461

That's exactly the point: this is the right way to experiment new coins, and to progressively add new features to Bitcoin without the need to risk to buy some stupid scamcoin.

Sort of. I certainly view it as one potentially right way to experiment with expanding the functionality of Bitcoin.

Quote
I think that we will see a lot of hate toward sidechains from all the altcoiners, and you will know why: sidechains take from them the opportunity to make some profit pumping new coins.

I agree with you there will be hate. I disagree with that reaction even though also I don't agree with the hate directed at alts.

I'm not sure about your second sentence though. What is your explanation for why the largest alt has (and a few of the top alts have) nothing to do with features?
1496051971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1496051971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1496051971
Reply with quote  #2

1496051971
Report to moderator
POLONIEX TRADING SIGNALS
+50% Profit and more via TELEGRAM
ALTCOINTRADER.CO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1496051971
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1496051971

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1496051971
Reply with quote  #2

1496051971
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 11:46:43 AM
 #14462

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%

Okay, so you have one data point from that source, which more or less agrees with my original rough estimate of 10%. I still doubt the number measured that way or any other reasonable way is increasing. Alts have not exactly been doing well the past several months, in case you haven't noticed. Further in support is that every study I've seen says that alts are highly correlated with Bitcoin but positively leveraged, and since Bitcoin is down so much the alts are likely down more. But I don't have hard data other than the one chart that was posted. Do you?

BTW, the observation that alts are positively correlated with Bitcoin raises serious questions about the argument that alts "take value" from Bitcoin. Substitute goods would have negative correlation.


sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 12:13:27 PM
 #14463

One last quest on this sidechains thing, is it possible to remove the bridge between bitcoin and a sidechain at any given point in time?

p.s. sorry for the OT

Edit: fix grammar

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:05:50 PM
 #14464

If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?

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

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

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:08:04 PM
 #14465

If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?

Some altcoins are more equal than others.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:09:11 PM
 #14466

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.

You said if all the bitcoin are converted.  If all the bitcoin are converted that means there are no more sellers left and the price is zero because no more trade is possible in bitcoin.  

If the price is non-zero that means there are sellers of bitcoin, which also means arb channels are open.  The only way the channels can close is if it either the price of BTC or SCBTC goes to zero.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 01:12:53 PM
 #14467

If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?

Some altcoins are more equal than others.

It's kind of embarrassing that certain people keep clinging to the idea of demurrage, in spite of the fact that Freicoin conclusively proved that nobody wants self-destructing money.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
 #14468

If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?

Some altcoins are more equal than others.

It's kind of embarrassing that certain people keep clinging to the idea of demurrage, in spite of the fact that Freicoin conclusively proved that nobody wants self-destructing money.

What's embarrassing is brg444 continuing to promise that no altcoins will be considered in SC's when there is an entire section dedicated to them in the paper.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:17:08 PM
 #14469

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.

You said if all the bitcoin are converted.  If all the bitcoin are converted that means there are no more sellers left and the price is zero because no more trade is possible in bitcoin.  

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.



smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:18:29 PM
 #14470

It's kind of embarrassing that certain people keep clinging to the idea of demurrage, in spite of the fact that Freicoin conclusively proved that nobody wants self-destructing money.

One example does not prove this at all. It simply proved that no one wanted Freicoin. They might want something else with that property, but with some other differences.

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
 #14471

If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?

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

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

I love the idea, but I don't get how a dark 1:1 pegged SC can have a security incentive if you are only mining for fees.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 01:23:59 PM
 #14472

One example does not prove this at all. It simply proved that no one wanted Freicoin. They might want something else with that property, but with some other differences.
I have to agree with Daniel on this one. He proved fairly rigorously why demurrage-based currencies must fail, and nobody has produced a refutation stronger than, "Maybe if I hope hard enough it will work!!!"

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/08/22/the-problem-with-altcoins/

Quote
Freicoin is an idea whose time will never come. Since it rebukes buyers, it resists ever having value. Freicoin is thus not so much a scam but more an abortion. Its ideals are so refined that they eschew the merest chance of affecting the real world. Perhaps it could be taken as some sort of absurdist parody, which would be brilliant. I hope that is true because otherwise it is just too sad.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:31:14 PM
 #14473

One example does not prove this at all. It simply proved that no one wanted Freicoin. They might want something else with that property, but with some other differences.
I have to agree with Daniel on this one. He proved fairly rigorously why demurrage-based currencies must fail, and nobody has produced a refutation stronger than, "Maybe if I hope hard enough it will work!!!"

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/08/22/the-problem-with-altcoins/

Quote
Freicoin is an idea whose time will never come. Since it rebukes buyers, it resists ever having value. Freicoin is thus not so much a scam but more an abortion. Its ideals are so refined that they eschew the merest chance of affecting the real world. Perhaps it could be taken as some sort of absurdist parody, which would be brilliant. I hope that is true because otherwise it is just too sad.

That's essentially identical to the frequent argument that deflationary currencies can't work because no one will spend them (or, in his words, it rebukes sellers). Both are wrong.

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 01:36:46 PM
 #14474

One example does not prove this at all. It simply proved that no one wanted Freicoin. They might want something else with that property, but with some other differences.
I have to agree with Daniel on this one. He proved fairly rigorously why demurrage-based currencies must fail, and nobody has produced a refutation stronger than, "Maybe if I hope hard enough it will work!!!"

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/08/22/the-problem-with-altcoins/

Quote
Freicoin is an idea whose time will never come. Since it rebukes buyers, it resists ever having value. Freicoin is thus not so much a scam but more an abortion. Its ideals are so refined that they eschew the merest chance of affecting the real world. Perhaps it could be taken as some sort of absurdist parody, which would be brilliant. I hope that is true because otherwise it is just too sad.

That's essentially identical to the frequent argument that deflationary currencies can't work because no one will spend them (or, in his words, it rebukes sellers). Both are wrong.


Gold is deflationary, manure rots like demurrage. Try spending manure.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 24, 2014, 01:37:29 PM
 #14475

That's essentially identical to the frequent argument that deflationary currencies can't work because no one will spend them (or, in his words, it rebukes sellers). Both are wrong.
Your statement is only true if we don't care about reality. Or truth.

Both of these theories have been empirically tested, and only one of them demonstrated to be true.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:17:59 PM
 #14476

If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?

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

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


Who said so? The paper does suggest another altcoin can be spun off a sidechain. The difference is it also clearly states this is not where the ground for innovation lays. Altchain backed by BTC currency is what is important here. You chose to focus on the altcoin as if Blockstream's motivation is to create an altcoin using a sidechain which they have specifically explained why they have no interest and little purpose doing so.

I still have yet to see you come up with a good incentive for core dev to maliciously fork Bitcoin in a way that would advantage them.

No one is denying the existence of an apparent "conflict of interest". But like in all things Bitcoin you have to consider in an honest way what truly could go wrong.

How long will you ignore the concept of open source and distribution? What else do I need to say to explain to you that a SC fork is bound to fail?

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

To entertain your scenario the network then would be left with two options to consider.

1) The hypothetic Blockstream "pre-mined" altcoin
2) The community fork of the exact same altcoin with fairer distribution (hint : 1:1 peg)

Remember that a Bitcoin-like first mover advantage is inexistent in that case because of the open source development.

What's embarrassing is brg444 continuing to promise that no altcoins will be considered in SC's when there is an entire section dedicated to them in the paper.

What is embarassing is your continuing stubbordness in front of facts and arguments.

Did you read my post at all? Is there anything you would like to argue?

Do you not understand the idea that Sidechain are not an inherent threat to Bitcoin since Bitcoin is the parent chain?

You have repeatedly supported the idea in this thread that altcoins can barely make a dent into Bitcoin yet packaged in a sidechain you are somehow worried it could threaten it?

Do you recognize that scBTC have the SAME network effect challenge than any other altcoin?

"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
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:25:51 PM
 #14477

One example does not prove this at all. It simply proved that no one wanted Freicoin. They might want something else with that property, but with some other differences.
I have to agree with Daniel on this one. He proved fairly rigorously why demurrage-based currencies must fail, and nobody has produced a refutation stronger than, "Maybe if I hope hard enough it will work!!!"

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/08/22/the-problem-with-altcoins/

Quote
Freicoin is an idea whose time will never come. Since it rebukes buyers, it resists ever having value. Freicoin is thus not so much a scam but more an abortion. Its ideals are so refined that they eschew the merest chance of affecting the real world. Perhaps it could be taken as some sort of absurdist parody, which would be brilliant. I hope that is true because otherwise it is just too sad.

That's essentially identical to the frequent argument that deflationary currencies can't work because no one will spend them (or, in his words, it rebukes sellers). Both are wrong.


Gold is deflationary, manure rots like demurrage. Try spending manure.

People sell manure all the time. It's a huge industry. That is the same as spending.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:26:55 PM
 #14478

That's essentially identical to the frequent argument that deflationary currencies can't work because no one will spend them (or, in his words, it rebukes sellers). Both are wrong.
Your statement is only true if we don't care about reality. Or truth.

Both of these theories have been empirically tested, and only one of them demonstrated to be true.

Apparently you are a bit logic challenged. One example consistent with a premise does not "demonstrate" the premise to be true.

cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:29:36 PM
 #14479

I've been trying to wrap my head around the SC debate. I can only see a 1:1 peg working without it becoming an altcoin because fractional reserve. Transactions only supported by fees would preclude using them for micro-transactions. Competition for mining for the fees would reach equilibrium with Bitcoin mining. There's not much advantage to them except for minimal counterparty risk.

It sounds like a fairly safe way to create a decentralized exchange for designing Bitcoin's replacement.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:29:59 PM
 #14480

If altcoins are not being considered for SC's, why do they dedicate a paragraph to Freicoin in the Economic part of the paper?

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

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

I love the idea, but I don't get how a dark 1:1 pegged SC can have a security incentive if you are only mining for fees.

It will happen. There are plenty of good reason for a sidechain to use the anonymity feature of, say, Monero. What cypher fails to consider here is that a new currency is not necessary for this to exist. The altchain will leverage Bitcoin's currency and benefit from its network effect.

Quote
Improved payer privacy, e.g. the ring signature scheme used by Monero, can reduce the systemic risk of the transactions of particular parties being censored, protecting the fungibility of the cryptocurrency. Improvements to this have been suggested by Maxwell and Poelstra
400 [MP14, Poe14b] and Back[Bac13a], which would allow for even greater privacy. Today, ring signatures can be used with Monero coins, but not bitcoins; sidechains would avoid this exclusivity

I'm not sure about your security incentive question. Merge mining allows for hashing power of BTC to be shared with the anonymous altchain in a trivial way.

So tell me cypherdoc, what is more likely to catch on?

A 1:1 pegged sidechain with anonymity features or an anonymous sidechain issuing its own currency distributed in some malicious, hypothetic way that would benefit the Blockstream developer?

IIRC pre-mines have never really been popular or successful.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Pages: « 1 ... 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 ... 1559 »
  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!