Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 07:14:37 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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] 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013930 times)
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:16:06 AM
 #14761

...
AKA, 'bad'.  But the idea of crypto-currencies is inherently cool which makes a lot of the progressive techie types heads start to short circuit internally like that hitchhiker in 'Something about Mary.'  What do do?
...


Heh...yeah. The "solution" to that which many have come to in the past few months is to assert "blockchain tech is awesome!" while disavowing "the currency". Such confusion!

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511550877
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511550877

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511550877
Reply with quote  #2

1511550877
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:16:46 AM
 #14762


I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future. 


Can I ask how long you've been holding Bitcoin? Did you friend see you profit from the previous bubble? Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?

I'm really confused how these people would be holding stash of doge throughout different Bitcoin rallies and not get greedy.

"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

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:23:49 AM
 #14763

I very much like that quote from Greg, but I think you missed my point. Specifically, 1:1 fixed pegs may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification. It's wide open how this stuff may be instantiated, as smooth and I have been saying.

I think there can therefore be plenty of sidechain formulations that DO "create something that competes with the bitcoin currency". Thus, I think some of the "innovation-without-currency-competition" marketing may turn out to be false-hope.

I agree.

About the 1:1 peg specification : it may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification volume wise (in terms of sidechains created) but considering sidechains would allow the possibility to leverage the liquidity of BTC into different chains I'm under the impression it (the 1:1 peg) is the likely candidate for purposeful innovation.

"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
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:28:21 AM
 #14764

I very much like that quote from Greg, but I think you missed my point. Specifically, 1:1 fixed pegs may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification. It's wide open how this stuff may be instantiated, as smooth and I have been saying.

I think there can therefore be plenty of sidechain formulations that DO "create something that competes with the bitcoin currency". Thus, I think some of the "innovation-without-currency-competition" marketing may turn out to be false-hope.

I agree.

About the 1:1 peg specification : it may not be the dominant exchange-rate specification volume wise (in terms of sidechains created) but considering sidechains would allow the possibility to leverage the liquidity of BTC into different chains I'm under the impression it (the 1:1 peg) is the likely candidate for purposeful innovation.


I indeed hope it works out that way.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:37:57 AM
 #14765


I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future. 

Can I ask how long you've been holding Bitcoin?
My cost basis is about $6/BTC.  I've let that slip already (and I've not bought since 2011 so it hasn't changed.)

Did you friend see you profit from the previous bubble?
The main one I'm thinking of certainly did see some spikes, but didn't bite.  Other friends of the type I'm thinking of watched the whole thing and heard about it from me as it was starting to happen at least, but had the kind of viscereal negativity that induced the above screed.

Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?
I actually don't know anyone's actual possition in Dogecoin (if any) and it's a bit rude to ask.  All I know is that some people of the type I've illuded to seem to have a decent familiarity with it.

To answer your question though, No, No No!  Making money is greedy and evil!  The only reason to be involved with something is to help save the earth.

I, as kind of a lefty liberal progressive myself fall into something akin to that trap (without so much of the 'saving the earth' component since I can do some basic mathematics and have an inherently decent sense of magnitudes.)  My own involvement with Bitcoin is not completely about making money, and I've struggled internally to understand the ratio of greed/altruism which affects me at any given time.

I'm really confused how these people would be holding stash of doge throughout different Bitcoin rallies and not get greedy.

They are probably similarly confused.  I will say, though, that if one swears off profit it makes a loss a lot more palatable.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:43:17 AM
 #14766


I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future. 


Can I ask how long you've been holding Bitcoin? Did you friend see you profit from the previous bubble? Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?

I'm really confused how these people would be holding stash of doge throughout different Bitcoin rallies and not get greedy.

During the last big Bitcoin bubble LTC did even better. (DOGE didn't exist yet.) That's in general true of alts. They are positively correlated with BTC usually with leverage.

The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data. Crypto grows and shrinks together, and the truly shit alts (pure pump and dumps, blatant scams, etc.) never account for much other than noise. Given their size, the number of people who lose their money in them isn't even all that high, though of course it is unfortunate that it happens at all. Far more people lost far more money on MtGox then the entirety of altcoin scams, and that's just one Bitcoin scam.

Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.


Svante
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 19


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:54:29 AM
 #14767

gold collapsing
bitcoin collapsing
stock market collapsing


anything that is no collapsing?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 05:05:23 AM
 #14768

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins,

A simpler version of this is described in the paper. Simply pay miners in a new altcoin that is distinct and can't be used to unlock Bitcoins at all. But still tradeable and valuable if has demand and scarcity.

You then have the benefit of two different types of coins on the same chain and can do atomic cross-coin trades easily without the need for slower and more complicated cross-chain trades.

Anyone who thinks this won't spawn a new explosion of altcoins is delusional.



yep

In fact, just thinking out loud here, you could create demand (and therefore value) for such a coin by requiring payment of a fee in SideCoin to perform the transaction that will unlock real BTC. Such a transaction could burn the fee, increasing scarcity and value, which incentivizes more mining making the side chain more secure.

There are just so many combinations of crazy ideas, some blatant scams and pozni schemes, some less obviously so.

This "altcoin killing" technology will create more altcoins than ever.





the paper is so light on details.

I've always assumed a merge miner has to mine the tx that unlocks the original btc. But do they have to be paid in SideCoin or can it be bitcoin? It would make sense to be sidecoin.
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 05:10:30 AM
 #14769


I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future. 


Can I ask how long you've been holding Bitcoin? Did you friend see you profit from the previous bubble? Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?

I'm really confused how these people would be holding stash of doge throughout different Bitcoin rallies and not get greedy.

During the last big Bitcoin bubble LTC did even better. (DOGE didn't exist yet.) That's in general true of alts. They are positively correlated with BTC usually with leverage.

The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data.


Indeed, data so far suggests that new alts pretty much just compete with *other alts*. The alt-market has maintained 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for several years now.



Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.



I'll refrain from fully re-iterating my prior commentary on this, but I'd like to note that it's not a harmful obsession if you believe there's a good chance my prior statements on the matter are true. Again, if bitcoin fails as the leader, the case for crypto-scarcity *as a whole* is severely damaged, and that includes alts.

So bitcoin is different. If that's a manifestation of bitcoin-arrogance or "Bitcoin Maximalism" (a term I just heard for the first time), so be it. Smiley




Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 05:17:07 AM
 #14770

I've always assumed a merge miner has to mine the tx that unlocks the original btc. But do they have to be paid in SideCoin or can it be bitcoin? It would make sense to be sidecoin.

Unlocking doesn't require merged mining. In the paper it can be done two ways:

1. Using a federated model. This is essentially a multisig. This requires no change to BTC. It is ultimately up to the signers to decide (however they want) that the scBTC has been killed.

2. Using SPV-proofs. You provide an SPV-proof (chain of block headers) validating a transaction on the side chain that kills the scBTC, which is accepted by a BTC miner to unlock the coins. During a contest period (suggested to be days), someone else can provide a higher difficulty proof that invalidates yours, canceling the transaction. This requires a new op code.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 05:21:09 AM
 #14771

Quote
The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data.

Indeed, data so far suggests that new alts pretty much just compete with *other alts*. The alt-market has maintained 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for several years now.

If that were true you would expect hardly any correlation between BTC and alts, but a strong negative correlation between alts. But that is not what actually happens.


Quote
Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.

I'll refrain from fully re-iterating my prior commentary on this, but I'd like to note that it's not a harmful obsession if you believe there's a good chance my prior statements on the matter are true. Again, if bitcoin fails as the leader, the case for crypto-scarcity *as a whole* is severely damaged, and that includes alts.

That's not consistent with the evidence. If it were, then alts appreciating in value relative to BTC would threaten crypto doomsday, causing BTC's value relative to USD to decline, and vice versa. That would exhibit a negative correlation, which is exactly the opposite of what we see.

This is not proof, but it is the real world evidence that the theory might be wrong.

Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 05:59:37 AM
 #14772

Quote
The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data.

Indeed, data so far suggests that new alts pretty much just compete with *other alts*. The alt-market has maintained 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for several years now.

If that were true you would expect hardly any correlation between BTC and alts, but a strong negative correlation between alts. But that is not what actually happens.


What exactly "is not what actually happens"? Alts have cumulatively been 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for years, or are you contesting this? The number of alts used to be <10. Now it's >400. Therefore, alts mostly compete with other alts for aggregate share of the crypto-pie...



Quote
Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.

I'll refrain from fully re-iterating my prior commentary on this, but I'd like to note that it's not a harmful obsession if you believe there's a good chance my prior statements on the matter are true. Again, if bitcoin fails as the leader, the case for crypto-scarcity *as a whole* is severely damaged, and that includes alts.

That's not consistent with the evidence. If it were, then alts appreciating in value relative to BTC would threaten crypto doomsday, causing BTC's value relative to USD to decline, and vice versa. That would exhibit a negative correlation, which is exactly the opposite of what we see.

This is not proof, but it is the real world evidence that the theory might be wrong.



There is no evidence for the argument to be consistent with or not. Alts, in aggregate, have not appreciated in value relative to BTC (except for initially, obv); as asserted earlier, they've remained a fairly consistent portion of the total crypto mcap.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 07:22:17 AM
 #14773

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins, in spite of any so-called 2-way peg, or if they were perfectly fungible you would still end up with whatever percentage of the coins that had been mined constituting an inconvertible set of coins.


Could the sc miners be paid in txes fee only?

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

Activity: 1610



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 08:54:22 AM
 #14774

Quote
The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data.

Indeed, data so far suggests that new alts pretty much just compete with *other alts*. The alt-market has maintained 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for several years now.

If that were true you would expect hardly any correlation between BTC and alts, but a strong negative correlation between alts. But that is not what actually happens.


What exactly "is not what actually happens"?

There being hardly any correlation with Bitcoin and a negative correlation between alts. In fact there is a strong positive correlation between alts and BTC and likely between alts and each other (because they are all highly correlated with BTC).  At least major alts -- I have no idea what happens with the flash-in-the-pan alts.

Quote
Alts have cumulatively been 5-10% of bitcoin's market-cap for years, or are you contesting this? The number of alts used to be <10. Now it's >400. Therefore, alts mostly compete with other alts for aggregate share of the crypto-pie...

Most of those alts are dead or near dead, and many only live for a few weeks. The number of active alts at any given time is probably only a few dozen, and that includes some that have been around and active for years (LTC, NMC, PPC, etc.). That is probably an increase, but not orders of magnitude. Only a total of 27 alts right now have a market cap of at least $1 million.

Quote
There is no evidence for the argument to be consistent with or not. Alts, in aggregate, have not appreciated in value relative to BTC (except for initially, obv); as asserted earlier, they've remained a fairly consistent portion of the total crypto mcap.

There is evidence. The evidence is not only the lack of a negative correlation that would support the idea of alts being a threat or even a substitute for BTC, but a strong positive correlation. The evidence directly contradicts the crypto apocalypse theory.

You could construct an alternate theory that alts at up to 10% are positive for BTC but if they ever grew to say 30-50% that would be negative, but I'm skeptical. To get to 30% you have to reach 10% first. The likelihood of getting to 30% is much higher at 10% than 5%. In fact even 6% makes the "threat" somewhat more likely, which is why there should be a negative correlation, or at least not a strong positive one.

I have a alternate theory which is that alts serve as incubators for new ideas (both technical and marketing) that will ultimately help the entire crypto phenomenon and are therefore positive and useful. Any threat that alts present to BTC is dwarfed by the fact that BTC is currently priced for a <0.1% success rate against fiat and even tiny changes (for example, successful ideas trickling up from alts to BTC, or expansion of crypto adoption by alts with novel positioning, branding, and marketing) to that success rate mean far more to the overall value than the crypto apocalypse theory.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 09:26:54 AM
 #14775

I just had a thought. If you wanted to have a sidechain that itself used proof of work mining (peg a PoW altchain to Bitcoin), how could it really work? The miners would have to get paid, and they surely can't be paid in bitcoins so they would get newly issued altcoins. But those particular altcoins would not be convertible to bitcoins, in spite of any so-called 2-way peg, or if they were perfectly fungible you would still end up with whatever percentage of the coins that had been mined constituting an inconvertible set of coins.


Could the sc miners be paid in txes fee only?

yes, of course. Forgot about that.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2014, 09:48:14 AM
 #14776

The idea that alts "compete" with BTC is not supported by historical data. Crypto grows and shrinks together, and the truly shit alts (pure pump and dumps, blatant scams, etc.) never account for much other than noise. Given their size, the number of people who lose their money in them isn't even all that high, though of course it is unfortunate that it happens at all. Far more people lost far more money on MtGox then the entirety of altcoin scams, and that's just one Bitcoin scam.

Alti-alt sentiment in the Bitcoin community a harmful obsession and looks a lot like arrogance. It's that sort of attitude, in part, that encourages people to want to create distinct communities.

All good points.  It would serve the Altcoin Haters right if they become what they set out to destroy with this Scamchains BS.

The "There Is No God But Bitcoin And Satoshi Is Its Prophet" was never true, given The Founder's (PBUH) role in dotbit/Namecoin.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 12:05:02 PM
 #14777

I've always assumed a merge miner has to mine the tx that unlocks the original btc. But do they have to be paid in SideCoin or can it be bitcoin? It would make sense to be sidecoin.

Unlocking doesn't require merged mining. In the paper it can be done two ways:

1. Using a federated model. This is essentially a multisig. This requires no change to BTC. It is ultimately up to the signers to decide (however they want) that the scBTC has been killed.

2. Using SPV-proofs. You provide an SPV-proof (chain of block headers) validating a transaction on the side chain that kills the scBTC, which is accepted by a BTC miner to unlock the coins. During a contest period (suggested to be days), someone else can provide a higher difficulty proof that invalidates yours, canceling the transaction. This requires a new op code.


This is right explanations.

@cypherdoc
It is like lock bitcoins into sandbox. The rule, how to unlock them is written in bitcoin transaction what locks them. (creates sideChain)

It can be one of:

You can spend/unlock Bitcoin from sandbox
1. if you provide M on N signature
2. if you provide SPV-proofs
3. if you provide SPV-proofs AND/OR M of N signature
4. ... many more
=================

Then there are sidechain rules
 - conversion function (1:1 ?)
 - block-size, how ofen is new block generated
 - who will create block(confirm transactions) and how  PoW/Oracles/POS/DPOS/(authority audited by M auditors)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 28, 2014, 01:21:50 PM
 #14778

The "There Is No God But Bitcoin And Satoshi Is Its Prophet" was never true, given The Founder's (PBUH) role in dotbit/Namecoin.
Just because Satoshi, after the cypherpunks spend decades trying different combinations of ideas in their quest for internet money, figured out the right combination first does not mean he's infallible in everything.

I think we understand why Bitcoin's proof of work works today better than he understood why it worked in 2008.

Namecoin is a mistake - it puts a price on name registry without having price discovery, among other flaws.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:08:45 PM
 #14779

well, we got it in place now.  let's see if it holds.  if the $DJI fails to go up and make a new high and starts turning down over the intermed term, while the $DJT has made a new high, we'll get what i've warned to be a Dow Theory non-confirmation which has been seen at a majority of stock mkt tops over the last 100 yrs.  i would be on high alert:

boumalo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:02:09 PM
 #14780


I know next to nothing about dogecoin (or any alt really) because they don't interest me much, but judging from my friends who are kind of interested in them I'll predict they'll have an OK future. 


Can I ask how long you've been holding Bitcoin? Did you friend see you profit from the previous bubble? Do these people not want to make money or is their capital investment in Dogecoin trivial?

I'm really confused how these people would be holding stash of doge throughout different Bitcoin rallies and not get greedy.

Doge could make it but I think Bitcoin is still a way better bet; Gold is a very good conservative (compared to Bitcoin) bet as well

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 ... 1558 »
  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!