Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 06:54:49 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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] 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804722 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:00:49 PM
 #14701

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.
1480964089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964089
Reply with quote  #2

1480964089
Report to moderator
1480964089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964089
Reply with quote  #2

1480964089
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480964089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964089
Reply with quote  #2

1480964089
Report to moderator
1480964089
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480964089

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480964089
Reply with quote  #2

1480964089
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:02:53 PM
 #14702

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: 1330



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:16:40 PM
 #14703

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:18:45 PM
 #14704

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: 1330



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:20:49 PM
 #14705

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:24:16 PM
 #14706

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:27:06 PM
 #14707

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: 1344



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:29:17 PM
 #14708

Bitcoin collapsing, Gold on the up?

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

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:31:27 PM
 #14709

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:33:26 PM
 #14710

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:35:07 PM
 #14711

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: 1554



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:38:59 PM
 #14712

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.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:39:15 PM
 #14713

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.'



brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:41:22 PM
 #14714

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:44:02 PM
 #14715

"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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:47:18 PM
 #14716

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.)


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:55:19 PM
 #14717

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:57:39 PM
 #14718

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:57:53 PM
 #14719

It seems we are again challenging our ideas of sidechains.

what's happening is again you're not understanding my questions.

presumably these scBTC will have a market price on an exchange, just like BTC.  so i ask again, would the price of scBTC on an independent exchange affect your assessment of how well the SC with its innovation is working?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 27, 2014, 08:58:29 PM
 #14720

If 1:1 pegs can achieve stable transfer of BTCs between chains then this is where, to me, the innovation is.

BTC can't literally be "transferred," only locked.

What you are talking about is an altcoin that is backed by BTC and is likely to have lower volatility relative to BTC than an altcoin that doesn't have this backing. (Interestingly though, this could in theory mean higher volatility relative to fiat, though in practice that would not be the case with most current alts.)

http://konradsgraf.squarespace.com/storage/Monetary%20analsyis%20of%20sidecoins%20KG%2024Oct2014.pdf

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

Hard coded does not mean the code can't be changed. It is the same as with any altcoin. If the developers decide to change the code, and the community accepts it (without forking) then it is changed.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 ... 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!