Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 04:06:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803959 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:26:55 PM
 #14481

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.

1480824392
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824392

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824392
Reply with quote  #2

1480824392
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480824392
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824392

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824392
Reply with quote  #2

1480824392
Report to moderator
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:29:36 PM
 #14482

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:29:59 PM
 #14483

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:35:18 PM
 #14484

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.

1:1 pegged sidechains using bitcoins has currency are not "only supported by fees".

Miners are essentially reward by the usual BTC issuance and additional transactions from sidechains

"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
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:37:55 PM
 #14485

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.

1:1 pegged sidechains using bitcoins has currency are not "only supported by fees".

Miners are essentially reward by the usual BTC issuance and additional transactions from sidechains
Where are the block rewards bitcoin backing coming from if the chain is 1:1?

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:42:11 PM
 #14486

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.

1:1 pegged sidechains using bitcoins has currency are not "only supported by fees".

Miners are essentially reward by the usual BTC issuance and additional transactions from sidechains
Where are the block rewards bitcoin backing coming from if the chain is 1:1?

From the Bitcoin blockchain.

So if I understand this correctly, think of the altchains as a multi-sig wallet.

If you wish to use some features of a sidechain (anonymity) you would essentially lock them to the altchain. From there, they would move within the altchain blockchain until you unlock them back to BTC. Any unit in the altchain is essentially a bitcoin that has been locked into the altchain. There is no issuance of new coins, no distribution model.

"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
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:44:05 PM
 #14487

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.

1:1 pegged sidechains using bitcoins has currency are not "only supported by fees".

Miners are essentially reward by the usual BTC issuance and additional transactions from sidechains
Where are the block rewards bitcoin backing coming from if the chain is 1:1?

From the Bitcoin blockchain.

So if I understand this correctly, think of the altchains as a multi-sig wallet.

If you wish to use some features of a sidechain (anonymity) you would essentially lock them to the altchain. From there, they would move within the altchain blockchain until you unlock them back to BTC. Any unit in the altchain is essentially a bitcoin. There is no issuance of new coins, no distribution model.
Right. Then there is no mining in the SC? How are SC blockchains built?

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 02:51:29 PM
 #14488


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
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:08:11 PM
 #14489


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
 #14490


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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:20:11 PM
 #14491


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
 #14492


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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:35:24 PM
 #14493


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
 #14494


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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:44:28 PM
 #14495


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
 #14496

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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 03:56:58 PM
 #14497

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
 #14498

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: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 24, 2014, 04:15:13 PM
 #14499

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
 #14500

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 ... 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!