Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

Still... jumping the gun.
Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather.
Is there a delivery date with committed features even?
This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money".

[1685900083]

1685900083

[1685900083]

1685900083

[1685900083]

1685900083

[rpietila]

-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

Still... jumping the gun.
Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather.
Is there a delivery date with committed features even?
This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money".

Also the current beaten state of Monero (€ 2.5 million mktcap) shows that:

- the market never gave any 1%+ chance for Monero achieving anything in the first place;
- anything can make it go up from here, even something totally unrelated to anonymity;
- a very small number of people can keep it in the current value as a community coin, regardless what BTC does.

[NewLiberty]

-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

Still... jumping the gun.
Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather.
Is there a delivery date with committed features even?
This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money".

Also the current beaten state of Monero (€ 2.5 million mktcap) shows that:

- the market never gave any 1%+ chance for Monero achieving anything in the first place;
- anything can make it go up from here, even something totally unrelated to anonymity;
- a very small number of people can keep it in the current value as a community coin, regardless what BTC does.

I can't predict what will happen, but I would counsel people against taking investment advice from someone that confuses an announcement of a theoretical plan with an "achievement".

I'm a fan of sidechains.  I'm also a fan of a ring-signature side chain, and personally advocated this to the monero-dev folks and to the monero economic workgroup.  To be very clear on the matter: Many things that are happening are simply done and not announced ahead of time.  Announcing an idea even with a plan, is often not the best method, if hype isn't followed swiftly by a useful delivery, it is not better than FUD, and generally worse.

[Odalv]

Exchange sideChain
 - Few(let's say Bitstamp, Huobi, Circle, BitFinex, BitPay) big btc-exchanges can create Federated peg (somethig like multi-signature address 4 of 5)
 - they will create new currency ExchangeBTC conversion rate 1:1
 - there are only 5 miners (the Federated exchanges)
 
ExchangeBCT will have superior properties:
 - any exchange user can create new ExchangeBTC by depositing BTC into special 4 of 5 multisignature address.

 - you can use it on exchange same as bitcoin (it is "backed" by bitcoin)

 - it can be fast transfered between this exchanges

 - it is hard to stole it because there are required 4 signatures to withdraw bitcoins (and in case only ExchangeBTC is stolen from exchange wallet then this can be easy reversed by exchanges)

 - maybe it can be also traded  againts BTC

[inca]

Having ruminated over side chains for a bit I think they in principle could be a good thing for btc adoption but may change what btc is today irreparably as a concept. If they operate a fixed peg via the 'two way peg' to btc then they are not inflationary. I think any side chain which has any kind of float between btc and SC will struggle to find btc users, thought I can see money being chased by unscrupulous SC developers in this type of enterprise initially, and this could be potentially inflationary or disruptive to btc. Fixed peg approaches will be stuck with the price volatility that btc currently enjoys though years in the future this may not be a problem.

If we take the moneroSC which potentially boasts anonymous coin transfers between individuals on the side chain. Then really it is just a dark pool of locked BTC changing hands as monero tokens off chain. The off and on ramp addresses can still be tracked which may limit the attractiveness if it is not widely used. I can't see this taking off to be honest except in black market use. In time the bitcoin blockchain will be mapped out by governments and tied to identities closely. On and off ramps will be monitored closely by Western governments through regulation.

Say someone (blockstream) starts the sidechain nanoBTC, designed to be ultra low transaction fee, and near instantaneous, suitable for micropayments online and in shops etc. The aim being to support huge volume (de)centralised transactions off chain but denominated in pegged side chain btc. The main stumbling blocks for adoption like any alt would be utility and acceptance as a currency. It would then need to be supported by big players in the industry (bitpay, coinbase, circle, other payment gateways etc) who agree to integrate nanoBTC with a big grand opening at the outset. It could have a branded corporate america friendly logo.

How would that work in practice? At first swapping between standard BTC and nanoBTC is possible via a single click in your centralised wallet, allowing the security conscious to maintain funds in native BTC with a hotwallet in nanoBTC. Perhaps this happens 'under the hood' without the consumer realising during transactions between certain companies. Over time, barring security disasters people gradually stop using btc natively for transactions and instead use nanoBTC as cash everything online. NanoBTC becomes a ubiquitous payment token but is still exhangeable for BTC and the bitcoin network is maintained as before with relatively few TPS, simply acting as a backing store of value, and in time average joe is unaware of btc at all.

BTC is held natively as a commodity by investment houses and investors in ETF's. Perhaps in time the value of BTC is actually maintained by use of nanoBTC globally.  Whoever controls the incentives behind the nanoBTC network gets very rich.

Edit: this could be how the unit change dilemma is solved, allowing regular joe public to not be put off by the psychology of spending hundreds/thousands of $ for a small amount of btc.

[Dusty]

And what is Shamir's Secret Sauce (Sharing)? - I'm not familiar with any names in the SC propaganda campaign except for Andreas Antonopoulos.

Shamir's Secret Sharing (and its derivatives) is a basic cryptology method that multi-signature transactions and dark wallets use.

Not quite: SSS is a method to "divide" a private key in N pieces, so that M of them are sufficient to rebuild the original key and sign a transaction (even not a multisig one).
When the key is rebuilt there is an attack surface because a malware (or a human fwiw) could steal the key.

Multisignatures on the other hand works having different keys in different places and they never need to be brought together to sign a transaction, this way if an attacker is able to steal one of them, the others remains protected.

So, while the fact that M persons must act to prepare a transaction is similar, the technicalities in which this is is made is quite different, and this brings very different kind of security.

TL;DR: Use multisig, not SSS.

[sidhujag]

25 euro banks failed stress tests...bullish btc

[Adrian-x]

25 euro banks failed stress tests...bullish btc

Yes but...
The narrative goes like this: the age cyber punks has ended techies are taking over, the age of techies is being superseded by  Libertarian ideologists, who get told to move over for silicon valley, who are now under threat from keynesian inflationists 

[brg444]

https://xapo.com/post/what-is-bitcoin-the-best-money-in-human-history/

a nice write up from Ted Rogers at Xapo.

obviously inspired by Wences speeches but still a good, condensed, text version

[brg444]

just had a good laugh 

Therefore, for any of you out there thinking that bitcoin is dead in the water, it might be.  The currency is not the important factor.  The important factor is the cryptographically secure blockchain protocol, as this gives the protocol the ability to record and transfer value without trusted third parties such as banks.  That technology, given to the world by Satoshi Nakamoto, may just transform everything including banking.

http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2014/10/the-importance-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-blockchain-to-banks-and-everyone.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Melbustus]

just had a good laugh 

Therefore, for any of you out there thinking that bitcoin is dead in the water, it might be.  The currency is not the important factor.  The important factor is the cryptographically secure blockchain protocol, as this gives the protocol the ability to record and transfer value without trusted third parties such as banks.  That technology, given to the world by Satoshi Nakamoto, may just transform everything including banking.

http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2014/10/the-importance-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-blockchain-to-banks-and-everyone.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It's a little insane how willing people are to make statements of certainty without understanding what they're talking about. I often wonder whether people prone to that are knowingly speaking without a full understanding, or if they're just too stupid to know that they don't know something.

[BldSwtTrs]

just had a good laugh  

Therefore, for any of you out there thinking that bitcoin is dead in the water, it might be.  The currency is not the important factor.  The important factor is the cryptographically secure blockchain protocol, as this gives the protocol the ability to record and transfer value without trusted third parties such as banks.  That technology, given to the world by Satoshi Nakamoto, may just transform everything including banking.

http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2014/10/the-importance-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-blockchain-to-banks-and-everyone.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It's a little insane how willing people are to make statements of certainty without understanding what they're talking about. I often wonder whether people prone to that are knowingly speaking without a full understanding, or if they're just too stupid to know that they don't know something.

Absolutely, the speed with wich this meme is spreading shows how few people of the top tier of society are able to think for themselves. Pretty scary.

[tvbcof]

...
These reasonably high valuations have resulted in amazingly fast growth in the mining side of infrastructure.  Pretty much only the mining side, unfortunately, because that is where the designer(s) saw fit to provide a reward.  When I first read about Bitcoin I was under the misconception that transferring transactions was rewarded.  Then I thought that there was a mechanism imagined for it but it just was not implemented yet.  Now I see no sign of it.  Oh well.
...

I don't see it like that, the blockchain is maintained by the nodes, the nodes are the ones paying the price for included transactions, they pay for bandwidth and storage. As a result they hold the ability to propagate the protocol  that is used (including mining fees). Miners on the other hand are competing for the fees, they have the ability to charge, but not at the expense of exclusion from acceptance by the nodes.

That's pretty much what I was saying.  There is no reward for running nodes which simply transfer transactions without mining and thus as it becomes more difficult to do so they are increasingly underrepresented.

From day one I felt that transmission of transactions was more important than mining.  Maybe Satoshi didn't anticipate pooled efforts and overlay networks so that even those with mining gear need not be transfer agents, but I find it unlikely.  I'm sorely disappointed that the system did not incentivize development of a robust and diverse transmission network.

There is excess mining now and will be most likely untill the latter half of 2016,  but they won't be able to sustain themselves with high fees, (effectively they want huge transaction (in data size) not value to earn more while nodes want less.

SC take advantage of excess mining capacity and security today but will not allow mining power to scale to the appropriate size to protect the value stored on the blockchain in say 1 or 2 halvings. As the miners won't secure it if the value isn't reflected in there reward and fees. (SC depend on Bitcoin, boasting that they take the load off the network, adding value elsewhere at the protocol level) - seems like a blockchain cancer to me when I project 6 years ahead.  

Actually, as I read the SC whitepaper, there is incentive to mine Bitcoin even if it is unprofitable because, as the value foundation, Bitcoin is critical to the function of the sidechain.  Score another one for sidechains.

The key element behind all of this is that Bitcoin proper maintains it's value.  And speaking for myself, the value of Bitcoin rests in huge part on it being independent from centralized control and realistically defensible from attack by those with significant resources (esp, governments and the judicial influence they have on corporations.)  Should that foundation fail so would the sidechain efforts which ride on top of it.

[lebing]

-- This is equivalent to saying there is no reason to use Monero in the first place. Everyone there was there because they believed in a pure anonymous coin and the market it served. However now with that possibility achieved via sidechains, there remains no reason to be in Monero any longer (imo).

This is jumping the gun a little, isn't it?
Isn't it a bit like saying:  "Now with the theory of relativity, there is no reason to use gasoline".
Or "because of the theory of quantum cryptography, there remains no reason to be in Bitcoin any longer".
A description of a thing, is quite different from the thing itself.

It was a jump a few months back when it was just an iffy concept - that is a few days ago when 3 of the core devs signed onto blockstream. Now its implementation is all but inevitable (imo). So, no its not much of a jump. It's essentially a recap of the first comment I made in this thread which started people talking about sidechains in the first place.

Still... jumping the gun.
Or jumping the vaporware if you'd rather.
Is there a delivery date with committed features even?
This seems like telling people to sell Quicken because Microsoft announces they are going to make "Microsoft Money".

We will see. This is the speculation forum after all 

[Melbustus]

https://xapo.com/post/what-is-bitcoin-the-best-money-in-human-history/

a nice write up from Ted Rogers at Xapo.

obviously inspired by Wences speeches but still a good, condensed, text version

Yeah, that was great. I'm glad to see the Xapo leadership really making an effort to educate people about what a breakthrough in *money* bitcoin is. This phase we're in where it's fashionable in tech/fintech circles to disregard the currency yet still talk up "blockchain tech" is very frustrating.

I'm even seeing it on ZapChain, which is supposed to be a community of bitcoin leaders. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the tech-oriented crowd doesn't think through, or really care about, societal economic/monetary/history issues at all, and so it's easier for them to miss the point and just get all wide-eyed about this "amazing blockchain tech". Fortunately, the technology is what it is, and they'll have to make these realizations eventually. At some point, market forces will make them think hard about what exactly blockchains do well, what they don't, and *why*.

In the meantime, as I've said for years, one of bitcoin's biggest hurdles is education. It's remarkably multidisciplinary, and to *truly* get it, you have to understand tech/cs, as well as monetary theory, some econ and history, and have an open-mind to boot. Not a frequent combo, which is why I'm continually amazed that bitcoin has gotten as far as it has in only 5 years.

[ssmc2]

http://gendal.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/a-simple-explanation-of-bitcoin-sidechains/

Found this on Reddit. Nice breakdown for us non-techies.

[Wekkel]

http://gendal.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/a-simple-explanation-of-bitcoin-sidechains/

Found this on Reddit. Nice breakdown for us non-techies.

"If you’ve followed Bitcoin for any time, you’ll know this is a seriously eminent group of authors"

I plead ignorance, but none of these names are familiar to me. Bitcoinica, Goxxed, Prirate40 etc, on the other hand... 

But having said so, the breakdown in the link is indeed a very comprehensible layman's summary of side chains.

[nanobrain]

just had a good laugh 

Therefore, for any of you out there thinking that bitcoin is dead in the water, it might be.  The currency is not the important factor.  The important factor is the cryptographically secure blockchain protocol, as this gives the protocol the ability to record and transfer value without trusted third parties such as banks.  That technology, given to the world by Satoshi Nakamoto, may just transform everything including banking.

http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2014/10/the-importance-of-cryptocurrencies-and-the-blockchain-to-banks-and-everyone.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It's a little insane how willing people are to make statements of certainty without understanding what they're talking about. I often wonder whether people prone to that are knowingly speaking without a full understanding, or if they're just too stupid to know that they don't know something.

Absolutely, the speed with wich this meme is spreading shows how few people of the top tier of society are able to think for themselves. Pretty scary.

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function?

It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique.

[dillpicklechips]

Can someone explain to me why this is a 'meme' and by inference of the comments above untrue; I have always thought "its the technology, not the currency" is pretty much on the nose as a precis for BTC.  It's been around for some time now.

Or is this just the cool internet kids thinking that anyone in finance couldn't possibly 'understand' and therefore this must simply be parroted.

Please ... you really do not understand why bitcoin needs to be valuable for a decentralised blockchain to function?

It's just clueless idiots that are saying this, amazingly they seem to be able to get repeated without critique.

Perhaps very few people actually understand the technology and are repeating what other are saying. Since so many are praising the blockchain it's easy to repeat the sentiment. The currency part and the blockchain from a layperson may appear seperate. It doesn't really bother me though as eventually they will have to concede that either they were wrong about blockchains or the currency. I have a feeling it may be the later.