Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:33:00 AM *
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 ... 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] 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805004 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 04:34:50 AM
 #14941

if Blockstream is successful at convincing mining pools to freely merge mining from the beginning, the SC can function securely while cultivating the innovation.  once proven stable, if i were a whale, i'd go for the pump knowing i have a risk free put.

Are you confused  Huh

I'm tired of going in circles with you  Undecided

Remember your "new" base case is one where there is now a sidechain block subsidy with issuance of new assets. these are not secured by the proposed merged mining.

The other problem with this new twist to your "base case" is it brings a very concerning security risk. Do not fool yourself. Leaving the BTC main chain for a sidechain securing its own issued asset is NOT a "risk free put"


i see what you're saying now.  the SC has to mine the sidecoin or the scBTC, not both at the same time?

good point.  but didn't the paper say that multiple assets could be secured on the same SC at the same time?  wtf?
1481020380
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020380

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020380
Reply with quote  #2

1481020380
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481020380
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020380

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020380
Reply with quote  #2

1481020380
Report to moderator
1481020380
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020380

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020380
Reply with quote  #2

1481020380
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 04:36:00 AM
 #14942

Remember your "new" base case is one where there is now a sidechain block subsidy with issuance of new assets. these are not secured by the proposed merged mining. 

Yes they are.  These secondary tokens will be an additional reward when SC blocks are mined.  These tokens will reside on the same chain as the pegged assets.

how does any blockchain do this?
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 04:37:52 AM
 #14943

This thread is awesome now.... I love FUD based in misunderstandings.  It is way cooler than global economics and the interplay between gold and bitcoin.  Roll Eyes

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 04:38:06 AM
 #14944

now, i for one, think that will be quite disruptive if we have to break out our cold storage wallet everytime a new innovation comes along forcing us to move to a new SC.  that will introduce all sorts of security and identity risks, not to mention volatility.

This would only be the case if the old chain utterly fails or such failure is expected (with sufficient confidence to justify the inconvenience you describe), otherwise you have no real incentive to move, since out retain the option to exchange at your convenience.

In any case, I'm a little confused by all these scenarios. It seems maybe we should talk about something other than sidechains on this thread? It's getting a bit old.

Or maybe not. I've recently seen the claim that risks introduced by the apparent progress toward side chains actually being implemented are behind the BTC price weakness. I don't buy it, but interesting theory.

Quote
how does any blockchain do this?

You can certainly have two or more different types of coins on one chain, side chain or otherwise.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 04:44:04 AM
 #14945

if Blockstream is successful at convincing mining pools to freely merge mining from the beginning, the SC can function securely while cultivating the innovation.  once proven stable, if i were a whale, i'd go for the pump knowing i have a risk free put.

Are you confused  Huh

I'm tired of going in circles with you  Undecided

Remember your "new" base case is one where there is now a sidechain block subsidy with issuance of new assets. these are not secured by the proposed merged mining.

The other problem with this new twist to your "base case" is it brings a very concerning security risk. Do not fool yourself. Leaving the BTC main chain for a sidechain securing its own issued asset is NOT a "risk free put"


i see what you're saying now.  the SC has to mine the sidecoin or the scBTC, not both at the same time?

good point.  but didn't the paper say that multiple assets could be secured on the same SC at the same time?  wtf?

from the paper
Quote
Of course, sidechains are able to support their own assets, which they would be responsible for maintaining the scarcity of

I think you are right that merge-mining solves this in a way BUT only if the majority of miners decide to mine the coin.

They will not unless they have an incentive to do so.

"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 30, 2014, 04:44:22 AM
 #14946

Or maybe not. I've recently seen the claim that risks introduced by the apparent progress toward side chains actually being implemented are behind the BTC price weakness. I don't buy it, but interesting theory.

well, i said that the day the paper came out and the price tanked.  i believe it IS related as SC's introduce considerable uncertainty into Bitcoin as in allowing a for profit company composed of several of its core devs make a change in what was supposed to be an open source consensus based source code that shouldn't favor any specific interested group, major contributors or not.

Quote
Quote
how does any blockchain do this?

You can certainly have two or more different types of coins on one chain, side chain or otherwise.

well there you go.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 04:48:14 AM
 #14947

They will not unless they have an incentive to do so.

you're failing to read my posts.

small miners struggling to mine BTC right now mainly at a loss would gladly switch to a SC that is producing cheap sidecoins in the hope of scooping up large #'s of sidecoin w/o competition while hoping for price appreciation if they see the same things you said would result in a price rise of scBTC, that being an increasing #scBTC's appearing on the SC (from the whale pump) along with a rise in the price of those same scBTC from speculative buying on an exchange AND an innovation.

remember, the SC is designed to be superior.  all i'm talking about is a natural fulfillment of that superiority.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 04:50:40 AM
 #14948

(with sufficient confidence to justify the inconvenience you describe)

this is what it comes down to if you ask me.

if the innovation and the backing of this new sidecoin is so important the value proposition outweight ALL of the risks involved with such a migration than what the hell let's do it. but remember cypherdoc, you have said it yourself, there are numerous and considerable risks and friction in such a movement

"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 30, 2014, 04:53:53 AM
 #14949

They will not unless they have an incentive to do so.

you're failing to read my posts.

small miners struggling to mine BTC right now mainly at a loss would gladly switch to a SC that is producing cheap sidecoins in the hope of scooping up large #'s of sidecoin w/o competition while hoping for price appreciation if they see the same things you said would result in a price rise of scBTC, that being an increasing #scBTC's appearing on the SC (from the whale pump) along with a rise in the price of those same scBTC from speculative buying on an exchange AND an innovation.

remember, the SC is designed to be superior.

I consider another flaw in your argument to be your casual dismissal of the force of arbitrage.

You are basically suggesting the network effect of the sidechain would grow faster than arbitrage could keep up with.

Considering the ever-present risks of locking your BTC on a sidechain until the majority of the infrastructure jumps boat, I consider this highly improbable

"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 30, 2014, 05:00:32 AM
 #14950

(with sufficient confidence to justify the inconvenience you describe)

this is what it comes down to if you ask me.

if the innovation and the backing of this new sidecoin is so important the value proposition outweight ALL of the risks involved with such a migration than what the hell let's do it. but remember cypherdoc, you have said it yourself, there are numerous and considerable risks and friction in such a movement

well then, here's a thought argument. 

let's say those 2 factors balance each other out exactly, ie, half of BTC holders convert BTC to scBTC while the other half stay put and half the miners currently mining BTC switch to primarily mining scBTC.  in that case, then i say the Bitcoin MC still loses.  which is really the risk i'm trying to identify, that being any damage a SC might inflict on Bitcoin MC.  it loses b/c the SC has succeeded in weakening Bitcoin's security by 50% subjecting it to possible 51% attacks and volatility (which will happen if any weakness in Bitcoin itself is detected by the market).  as volatility picks up, the price will drop.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 05:04:35 AM
 #14951

well then, here's a thought argument. 

let's say those 2 factors balance each other out exactly, ie, half of BTC holders convert BTC to scBTC while the other half stay put and half the miners currently mining BTC switch to primarily mining scBTC.  in that case, then i say the Bitcoin MC still loses.  which is really the risk i'm trying to identify, that being any damage a SC might inflict on Bitcoin MC.  it loses b/c the SC has succeeded in weakening Bitcoin's security by 50% subjecting it to possible 51% attacks and volatility (which will happen if any weakness in Bitcoin itself is detected by the market).  as volatility picks up, the price will drop.

not true.

using your base case. you have now essentially created two liquidity market. a transparent ann a private one. these are the only two markets that can work in synergy. both could thrive without effectively damaging the other. as long as people find value in transparence and in privacy and there will be a market for both such market.

I actually believe this is something that could very plausibly happen.

"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 30, 2014, 05:13:39 AM
 #14952

well then, here's a thought argument. 

let's say those 2 factors balance each other out exactly, ie, half of BTC holders convert BTC to scBTC while the other half stay put and half the miners currently mining BTC switch to primarily mining scBTC.  in that case, then i say the Bitcoin MC still loses.  which is really the risk i'm trying to identify, that being any damage a SC might inflict on Bitcoin MC.  it loses b/c the SC has succeeded in weakening Bitcoin's security by 50% subjecting it to possible 51% attacks and volatility (which will happen if any weakness in Bitcoin itself is detected by the market).  as volatility picks up, the price will drop.

not true.

using your base case. you have now essentially created two liquidity market. a transparent ann a private one. these are the only two markets that can work in synergy. both could thrive without effectively damaging the other. as long as people find value in transparence and in privacy and there will be a market for both such market.

I actually believe this is something that could very plausibly happen.

there are a lot of speculators that can be sold an innovation that really isn't one.  such as demurrage coin everyone keeps talking about.  you might not think it's a good innovation but if all of a sudden you start seeing large #'s of scBTC appearing on its SC along with a rising price, you yourself said those would be indications of a succeeding SC.  that would be all it takes for some other speculators to pile on.

and in this case, where an innovation is marginal if not a bad idea, the original pumping whale might just do a pump and dump.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 05:18:39 AM
 #14953

I consider another flaw in your argument to be your casual dismissal of the force of arbitrage.

IF the whale has indeed identified a SC with a true innovation, he's in good shape jumping in first.  as everyone starts following, including miners willing to primarily mine the SC for its sidecoin and scBTC, Bitcoin MC could become MM'd and thus weaker from a security standpoint.  if that happens, the BTC price could be expected to drop below the scBTC price as the situation has now flipped from what it was prior to the SC takeover.  that's where the stragglers could get caught on the MC as 51% attacks could be levied to block SPV proof formation.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 05:30:05 AM
 #14954

(with sufficient confidence to justify the inconvenience you describe)

this is what it comes down to if you ask me.

if the innovation and the backing of this new sidecoin is so important the value proposition outweight ALL of the risks involved with such a migration than what the hell let's do it. but remember cypherdoc, you have said it yourself, there are numerous and considerable risks and friction in such a movement

why are you arguing against a conclusion that paper itself talked about, that being a migration to a new SC?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 05:31:19 AM
 #14955

there are a lot of speculators that can be sold an innovation that really isn't one.  such as demurrage coin everyone keeps talking about.  you might not think it's a good innovation but if all of a sudden you start seeing large #'s of scBTC appearing on its SC along with a rising price, you yourself said those would be indications of a succeeding SC.  that would be all it takes for some other speculators to pile on.

and in this case, where an innovation is marginal if not a bad idea, the original pumping whale might just do a pump and dump.

lots of speculators != market majority

that's another flaw in your argument.

the market and liquidity will decide what is right for itself, but at this point speculators will never drive it to champion a coin that is flawed, whichever way.

the only thing that can disrupt Bitcoin and effectively eliminate it, at this point, is a more important innovation. one that would improve on Bitcoin the way Bitcoin improves on gold. if this happen I will welcome it with open arms and speculators that will have spawned this movement will deserve all of their reward.

"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 30, 2014, 05:33:06 AM
 #14956

why are you arguing against a conclusion that paper itself talked about, that being a migration to a new SC?

arguing? where did you read me arguing there?

I have provided what is, in my opinion, the only context by which this migration could happen & effectively damage BTC.

"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 30, 2014, 05:41:48 AM
 #14957

there are a lot of speculators that can be sold an innovation that really isn't one.  such as demurrage coin everyone keeps talking about.  you might not think it's a good innovation but if all of a sudden you start seeing large #'s of scBTC appearing on its SC along with a rising price, you yourself said those would be indications of a succeeding SC.  that would be all it takes for some other speculators to pile on.

and in this case, where an innovation is marginal if not a bad idea, the original pumping whale might just do a pump and dump.

lots of speculators != market majority

that's another flaw in your argument.

the market and liquidity will decide what is right for itself, but at this point speculators will never drive it to champion a coin that is flawed, whichever way.


sigh, i didn't say that in this case of a marginal innovation that all BTC holders would switch to scBTC.  in that case, the SC wouldn't take over.  i simply said that a whale could still do a pump and dump to try and drive the price of scBTC upwards.  his profit would probably have to come at some risk of buying scBTC on the open mkt prior to his pump or even during his pump to assist the ramp.  and this could still drive confusion amongst other BTC speculators who might decide to pile onto the SC causing increasing volatility for the MC in terms of price.
Quote

the only thing that can disrupt Bitcoin and effectively eliminate it, at this point, is a more important innovation. one that would improve on Bitcoin the way Bitcoin improves on gold. if this happen I will welcome it with open arms and speculators that will have spawned this movement will deserve all of their reward.

well at least we're starting to agree on some things in that you now see it is possible for this migration and switch to a SC can happen.  that's progress.

but my real point is that instead of forcing all of us to jump to a new SC every time a new innovative SC is spawned, creating headache and risk for us, why don't the core devs buckle down and work harder to introduce new innovations into Bitcoin itself as it currently stands instead of creating this whole new risky sub-structure called SC's that attach risk and volatility to the main chain?

or is it heresy to say that "devs should not dev" unnecessarily when it comes to Bitcoin?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 05:43:06 AM
 #14958

time for bed.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 06:13:51 AM
 #14959

you know, it just occurred to me that when Austin Hill goes around to all the mining pools and mines and tries to convince them to MM all his SC's, he's introducing a market distortion.

in other words, he's attempting to get something for nothing.
You've distilled my concern quite concisely. Thinking through the MM scenario if the SC gains any momentum and can sustain a higher reward when Bitcoins reward diminish at halving Austin Hill will have succeeded, HeliKopterBen scenario is quite interesting but does not give enough consideration to Bitcoins halving in just 2 years. That excess mining will be chasing the SC tx and rewards, and Bitcoins MC status diminishes as the Bitcoin reward is insignificant in comparison to mining the SC - the up side for a while is miners mine SC coins and convert scBTC to BTC, (do the same work earn more BTC.) Miners will abandon BTC mining as reward drops and focus on the SC.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 06:26:31 AM
 #14960

This thread is awesome now.... I love FUD based in misunderstandings.  It is way cooler than global economics and the interplay between gold and bitcoin.  Roll Eyes

I liked it a few weeks back. Zero hedge thinking and hard hitting observations. Now, it's the SC thread (but never too old to learn).

Like this post? you can tip me (BTC) 1LGi2DMhectdFSkBid5srrnHk8WHgD3V1d or very WoW (Doge) D9p6FZQb1sKkq9hApy4tnjSduYfdnc74bb
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 ... 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!