Bitcoin Forum
October 31, 2024, 05:06:09 PM *
News: Bitcoin Pumpkin Carving Contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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] 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 ... 1557 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2032230 times)
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 07:40:49 PM
 #14661

What got me first into bitcoin was a talk by Rick falvinge from a 2012 bitcoin conference. He talked about the rise of the internet and the end of banking. Superb, funny and to the point.

Did you hear his talk at the 2011 bitcoin conference in Prague, too? It's worth a watch, although parts are similar to the 2012 London one.




Actually I am mistaken. It was that one. But I only watched it in december 2012 Smiley
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4732
Merit: 1277


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 07:55:52 PM
 #14662

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:00:49 PM
 #14663

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:02:53 PM
 #14664

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.



what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:16:40 PM
 #14665

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.

I like your approach but with alts someone gets your Bitcoin, in effect the demand for Bitcoin is inherent in the trade and the Bitcoin network grows as a result scam or not.

With SC your approach is more conservative than with alts, I expect we'd see as many scam attempts with SC as we've seen with alts.

My question is should that feature be enabled at the protocol level when we have technology to do the same thing with Bitcoin on an application layer like OT?

Loved that Unix programming story earlier.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:18:45 PM
 #14666

what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

once the sidechains technology has matured enough and has been vetted by different, independent, reviewers

much like Bitcoin, when it has been made clear that the *open-source* code of the sidechain is safe and sound then I see no reason to be concerned with sidechain failure.


"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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:20:49 PM
 #14667

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.
Many believe the exchange will be 1:1 over time and the SC won't can't  be inflated.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
 #14668

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.
Many believe the exchange will be 1:1 over time and the SC won't can't  be inflated.

Are the sidechains "rules" not set in stone at its creation?

"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
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:27:06 PM
 #14669

what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

once the sidechains technology has matured enough and has been vetted by different, independent, reviewers

much like Bitcoin, when it has been made clear that the *open-source* code of the sidechain is safe and sound then I see no reason to be concerned with sidechain failure.



would a stable or rising price for scbtc enter into that assessment?
markj113
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1043



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
 #14670

Bitcoin collapsing, Gold on the up?

http://www.thechinamoneyreport.com/2014/10/25/gold-at-7000-article-goes-viral-in-chinese-media/

cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:31:27 PM
 #14671

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

And if so why hasn't Maxwell warned us of this?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:33:26 PM
 #14672

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

taking scBTC sure. if by "thus btc too" you mean the bitcoins attached to it then yes I agree also that it is possible.

but taking Bitcoin down with it? I wouldn't go there

"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
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:35:07 PM
 #14673

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

taking scBTC sure. if by "thus btc too" you mean the bitcoins attached to it then yes I agree also that it is possible.

but taking Bitcoin down with it? I wouldn't go there

and why don't I see Maxwell warning us of that?
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1004



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:38:59 PM
 #14674

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?
I don't interpret it that way.

Before you can get your BTC back, you've got to perform burn transaction on the sidechain.

So if the sidechain ceases to function entirely, you have no way to generate the SPV proof that lets you claim your BTC.

But does the paper state that you have to perform this burn to get back or is that your interpretation of what has to happen?

Reason I ask is that many people seem to believe they can get back no matter what.
Many believe the exchange will be 1:1 over time and the SC won't can't  be inflated.

Are the sidechains "rules" not set in stone at its creation?


"any deterministic function". At the extreme, the exchange rate can therefore be dynamically set through time using some Oracle as an input. In theory.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4732
Merit: 1277


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
 #14675

Who here has interpreted the SC paper to mean that you can get your BTC back from scBTC in the case of a SC failure?

I have as long as one is careful to choose a well implemented and managed sidechain and one stays on the ball.

I personally would put only the value on sidechains that I could afford to lose.  This value would grow with time as the sidechains solution and the various implementations of it mature.

I would always only risk any value on a sidechain which could not fail in a way where someone else would end up with my BTC.  A failure mode would have to result in a total loss else I am utterly un-interested in playing.

My calculations are indeed very close to how I play Bitcoin itself.


what specifically would have to happen to get you to move a significant number of your btc over to the sc?

Why the fuck would I do that?  It makes no sense.  The whole point is that one can keep their nest-egg in Bitcoin and use other solutions as needed for buying trinkets, tipping people, buying shit from 'licensed' entities, preserving financial privacy when needed, etc.

Bitcoin is to sidechains as Gold is to Bitcoin in my conception of the world.  The fact that Bitcoin is still driving forward with 'good ideas' needed to achieve the goal of being everything to everyone is by far the biggest reason I don't risk more in using it as a value store.  Sidechains could almost completely illuminate that deficiency in Bitcoin.  And better yet it could do so before it's what in my mind is 'to late.'



sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:41:22 PM
 #14676

would a stable or rising price for scbtc enter into that assessment?

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

I am not so much interested in sidechains supported by native currencies. They are essentially altcoins and I have historically stayed away from these.

If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is. In that case, price of the unit ideally gravitates toward parity with original BTC for reasons discussed before in this thread. It is possible the BTC unit resting on a sidechain would have a slightly discounted market price for security concerns but I expect that gap to significantly narrow once/if technology matures.

"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: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:44:02 PM
 #14677

"any deterministic function". At the extreme, the exchange rate can therefore be dynamically set through time using some Oracle as an input. In theory.

Of course, but these rules are hard coded into the sidechain so one knows what to expect before moving his BTC there.

My point is I don't believe the sidechain can magically change its rule and dispossess everyone of their BTC. Unless there existed a backdoor which I expect anyway would be identified after careful review of the code.

"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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4732
Merit: 1277


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:47:18 PM
 #14678

brg444, do you agree with JR that a SC failure can occur taking scbtc with it and thus btc too?

So what?  Would you agree that someone can lose their Bitcoin private key?

And if so why hasn't Maxwell warned us of this?

Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
 #14679

Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)



it's not obvious given my reading of the paper.  maybe to you and me, but not the average person.

why shouldn't i expect the "obvious" to be expressed as a warning in the paper?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:57:39 PM
 #14680

Maybe because it's relatively obvious (depending on implementation.)



it's not obvious given my reading of the paper.  maybe to you and me, but not the average person.

why shouldn't i expect the "obvious" to be expressed as a warning in the paper?

You are being really disingenous again.

Did Satoshi warn about the dangers of altscams in the Bitcoin white paper?

"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 ... 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] 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 ... 1557 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!