Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 06:20:58 AM *
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 ... 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] 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011168 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:08:30 AM
 #15041


My understanding is a 1:1 peg is optional. And there is no mention of pegging the block rewards which would also be required to maintain a 1:1 pegged relationship.


1:1 is optional indeed but then the sidechain is no more a BTC application specific chain but a sidecoin, the younger brother of the altcoin.

Pegging the block reward? I think this explains your misunderstanding.

A 1:1 sidechain is not created with any unit in it. There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.

"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
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:10:56 AM
 #15042

There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.

it doesn't have to be that way.

which is precisely why SC's are a prelude to a shit fest with all sorts of blossoming SC's even worse than the altcoin explosion.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:11:14 AM
 #15043

I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency."

Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest.
If money is memory then the ledger is the money.


The ledger is shared between chains. Sidechains are digital fiat to Bitcoin's gold. Only with the advantage of no counterparty risk and therefore no central bank inflation.

I will predict that no matter how this end, there will forever be a limited supply cryptocurrency as long as there are libertarians walking the earth.

no, they are distinct ledgers with different properties +/- a sidecoin.  the SC initially will be inherently weaker and therefore less secure from MM.  this is a given since not all miners will agree to MM the SC.  they are not shared when firewalled off from one another.

sorry, you are right. that was indeed an incorrect statement.

the ledger is not shared between sidechains but all 1:1 sidechains abide by its entries.

"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 31, 2014, 01:13:00 AM
 #15044

I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency."

Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest.
If money is memory then the ledger is the money.


The ledger is shared between chains. Sidechains are digital fiat to Bitcoin's gold. Only with the advantage of no counterparty risk and therefore no central bank inflation.

I will predict that no matter how this end, there will forever be a limited supply cryptocurrency as long as there are libertarians walking the earth.

no, they are distinct ledgers with different properties +/- a sidecoin.  the SC initially will be inherently weaker and therefore less secure from MM.  this is a given since not all miners will agree to MM the SC.  they are not shared when firewalled off from one another.

sorry, you are right. that was indeed an incorrect statement.

the ledger is not shared between sidechains but all 1:1 sidechains abide by its entries.

no offense.  but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts.  you're everywhere with everyone.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:15:09 AM
 #15045

There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.

it doesn't have to be that way.

which is precisely why SC's are a prelude to a shit fest with all sorts of blossoming SC's even worse than the altcoin explosion.

 Lips sealed

I know!

But to be honest I couldn't care less about this. Scammers will scam and speculators, suckers and fools will lose money. Sidechain doesn't enable them. In reality it confronts them with the question I have presented before : now that 1:1 sidechains exist, what is so special about the features you are proposing that they need their own coin to function, because the guy next door is doing just the same thing BUT on a 1:1 peg.

If they answer me like smooth believe they will : "because I want it to be so". Then F*** them, I'll buy from your neighbour at the 1:1 shop, there's MUCH less risk.

"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 31, 2014, 01:16:32 AM
 #15046

no offense.  but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts.  you're everywhere with everyone.

you complain even when I admit I was wrong?  Cry

"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 31, 2014, 01:20:27 AM
 #15047

no offense.  but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts.  you're everywhere with everyone.

you complain even when I admit I was wrong?  Cry

that wasn't a response to your admission.

it's just that you popped up here in this thread with a vengeance the day the whitepaper was released and have countered every single one of my posts and any other negative post in this thread.

it's odd b/c i know for a fact that the Blockstream ppl knew ahead of time i was going to be trouble given my vocalness about SC's going back months to its original announcement.  in that sense, i'm not surprised by someone like you popping up here.

but geez, you are persistent!  you'd think alot of money was involved!
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:27:49 AM
 #15048

looking forward to tomorrow's end of the week for gold, you can see we are going to generate a weekly/intermediate term sell signal, already.  that's really bad for gold and even weaker than i expected as you all know i covered my gold and silver shorts (ZSL & DZZ) right before the very short term bounce (weep).  in fact, you can see a very bearish large, multi month descending triangle forming:

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:33:17 AM
 #15049

that wasn't a response to your admission.

it's just that you popped up here in this thread with a vengeance the day the whitepaper was released and have countered every single one of my posts and any other negative post in this thread.

it's odd b/c i know for a fact that the Blockstream ppl knew ahead of time i was going to be trouble given my vocalness about SC's going back months to its original announcement.  in that sense, i'm not surprised by someone like you popping up here.

but geez, you are persistent!  you'd think alot of money was involved!

oh come on now.

if you really wanna know I'm 24, I have a pretty shitty job right now and close to all of my personal wealth is in BTC at the moment so if for a second I thought sidechains would be a menace to Bitcoin I for sure as hell wouldn't be "defending" it. because indeed "alot of money is involved"

you are right that I rarely show up to comment in this thread, that's cause I mostly prefer to lurk and most of the time I agree with the content being discussed here.

but when it comes to the truth and fighting off misinformation I can indeed be very persistent. I don't think you're generally ill intented but I found discomfort and unfairness in your witchhunt so I had to address it. What I realize is most of your arguments all boiled down to misunderstanding of the new dynamics at stake. Which is okay, because I admittedly have made a couple of ignorant mistakes myself throughtout the argument. Fortunately, this whole discussion has been very educational for me and for that I am god honest thankful to you and everyone who has been participating.

just to fuel your paranoia though I have to say I'll be in Montreal tomorrow. you know where Blockstream is incorporated right  Wink

"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 31, 2014, 01:39:42 AM
 #15050

that wasn't a response to your admission.

it's just that you popped up here in this thread with a vengeance the day the whitepaper was released and have countered every single one of my posts and any other negative post in this thread.

it's odd b/c i know for a fact that the Blockstream ppl knew ahead of time i was going to be trouble given my vocalness about SC's going back months to its original announcement.  in that sense, i'm not surprised by someone like you popping up here.

but geez, you are persistent!  you'd think alot of money was involved!

oh come on now.

if you really wanna know I'm 24, I have a pretty shitty job right now and close to all of my personal wealth is in BTC at the moment so if for a second I thought sidechains would be a menace to Bitcoin I for sure as hell wouldn't be "defending" it. because indeed "alot of money is involved"

you are right that I rarely show up to comment in this thread, that's cause I mostly prefer to lurk and most of the time I agree with the content being discussed here.

but when it comes to the truth and fighting off misinformation I can indeed be very persistent. I don't think you're generally ill intented but I found discomfort and unfairness in your witchhunt so I had to address it. What I realize is most of your arguments all boiled down to misunderstanding of the new dynamics at stake. Which is okay, because I admittedly have made a couple of ignorant mistakes myself throughtout the argument. Fortunately, this whole discussion has been very educational for me and for that I am god honest thankful to you and everyone who has been participating.

just to fuel your paranoia though I have to say I'll be in Montreal tomorrow. you know where Blockstream is incorporated right  Wink

well, if that's all true, they should consider hiring you for marketing.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:41:22 AM
 #15051

well, if that's all true, they should consider hiring you for marketing.

Well to be honest I won't act like I would say no  Cheesy

"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 31, 2014, 01:44:30 AM
 #15052

well, if that's all true, they should consider hiring you for marketing.

Well to be honest I won't act like I would say no  Cheesy

you could use this thread as your resume.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:46:17 AM
 #15053

Instead of fearing what sidechains might do to bitcoin's value proposition, let's take a look at what is broken and how sidechains could help.  What has been the lesson of software monoculture time and time again?  Software monoculture increases the attack potential by ensuring high value for any found bugs/attacks.  This is right in line with the reasons for decentralization in the first place.  Worse than at a software level (which is actually fairly diverse and getting better), Bitcoin relying on one public key curve with a single set of parameters, with one single hashing algorithm used for mining is a disaster looking for a place to happen.  Sidechains would allow for innovative new ways of locking and unlocking coins according to more complex scripts, without exposing bitcoin itself to a turing complete scripting system.  Bitcoin miners merely have to check that you have an SPV proof that goes back to the hash you provided when locked the coins and allow time for someone to contest it with a higher value SPV proof.  The sidechain itself can implement different cryptography, time locking with m-of-n early release capability, smart contracts, or many other possible innovations.  Bitcoin will remain the backbone value and transactional network, while we will be able to use our bitcoins in new and exciting ways without needing to resort to centralized services to implement these features for us.

Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell.  Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard.  It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.

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

Activity: 2324


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:46:38 AM
 #15054

no offense.  but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts.  you're everywhere with everyone.

you complain even when I admit I was wrong?  Cry

A sure sign of a desperate soul.  Don't worry about it...it's SOP from our friend here.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 01:54:51 AM
 #15055

Bitcoin miners merely have to check that you have an SPV proof that goes back to the hash you provided when locked the coins and allow time for someone to contest it with a higher value SPV proof.  

this caught my eye.

what happens if someone who really owns the SPV proof doesn't respond with a higher value proof b/c they're not monitoring the blockchain?
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 02:01:53 AM
 #15056

A 1:1 pegged sidecoin. Let say it is pegged in such a way that all bitcoins can be moved to scBTC (or none). There will always be a difference in value, due to the different qualities of the two coins. We have discussed the possibility of higher value, in which case all bitcoins will be converted, effectively it becomes an altcoin that takes over.

If the value is smaller, due to the peg, the number of coins converted will be small. Because receivers of sxBTC, when they have accumulated more than is needed, will move them back. The smallness of this volume may limit the number of scBTC to the degree that it is a complete failure. So in case of lower value, it is just like a random scamcoin, and thus no threat to bitcoin, nor especially advantageous for the users.

The reason that a sidecoin might be less valueable, is that it has to have better qualities in the areas where bitcoin could have been better: transaction cost, anonymity, and confirmation speed, but it also have to be just as good as bitcoin, or better, in all other areas.

And no, expandable coin number, keynesian style, is not better than bitcoin's eventually fixed supply.

I am not concerned.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
October 31, 2014, 02:06:09 AM
 #15057

Instead of fearing what sidechains might do to bitcoin's value proposition, let's take a look at what is broken and how sidechains could help.  What has been the lesson of software monoculture time and time again?  Software monoculture increases the attack potential by ensuring high value for any found bugs/attacks.  This is right in line with the reasons for decentralization in the first place.  Worse than at a software level (which is actually fairly diverse and getting better), Bitcoin relying on one public key curve with a single set of parameters, with one single hashing algorithm used for mining is a disaster looking for a place to happen.  Sidechains would allow for innovative new ways of locking and unlocking coins according to more complex scripts, without exposing bitcoin itself to a turing complete scripting system.  Bitcoin miners merely have to check that you have an SPV proof that goes back to the hash you provided when locked the coins and allow time for someone to contest it with a higher value SPV proof.  The sidechain itself can implement different cryptography, time locking with m-of-n early release capability, smart contracts, or many other possible innovations.  Bitcoin will remain the backbone value and transactional network, while we will be able to use our bitcoins in new and exciting ways without needing to resort to centralized services to implement these features for us.

Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell.  Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard.  It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.
I don't think this is the best way to fix the broken bitcoin protocol development process.

It's a bandaid at best.

There is no inherent reason that adding signature algorithms shouldn't be in a release plan with other planned upgrades.

The real problem is the lack of credibility associated with the reference client developers.

None of them are enjoy enough community trust in terms of software engineering capabilities and also philosophical direction.

Side chains do not fix this problem.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 02:12:38 AM
 #15058

...

Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell.  Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard.  It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.

Amen!  I've not been tempted to fire up a full client for a long time, but I will absolutely do so if I can see it helping out with this effort.  Sidechains are to me one of the few things which has given me hope for Bitcoin in the last several years.  I see off-chain stuff happening with exchanges and Coinbase like things, but these are generally unhealthy with the only redeeming thing being that they've allowed Bitcoin proper a longer lease on life.  Sidechains could address the crisis but in a healthy way which doesn't lead to centralization.  I just hope they can win the foot race against Gavin's exponential growth ideas for Bitcoin core, and I feel incentivized to try to assist to the extent that I can.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 02:15:10 AM
 #15059

A 1:1 pegged sidecoin. Let say it is pegged in such a way that all bitcoins can be moved to scBTC (or none). There will always be a difference in value, due to the different qualities of the two coins. We have discussed the possibility of higher value, in which case all bitcoins will be converted, effectively it becomes an altcoin that takes over.

My opinion is a sxBTC value would not increase without first seeing a correlated increase in BTC. The reason for this is the sidechain in question is an additional value proposition to the use of Bitcoin itself and so the increase in price of the sidechain unit will be caused by an increase in the demand for Bitcoin because of the new feature provided by this sidechain.

As you have stated, the sidechain is only applicable to certain areas of transactions whereas Bitcoin covers them all. The logic is : no one is gonna buy some sxBTC on the open market just to be able to do faster or private transactions. They are going to buy BTC and then use some to store wealth, some to transact privately, some for faster confirmations.

"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 31, 2014, 02:21:31 AM
 #15060

The real problem is the lack of credibility associated with the reference client developers.

None of them are enjoy enough community trust in terms of software engineering capabilities and also philosophical direction.

Side chains do not fix this problem.

Lack of credibility amongst whom exactly? (Honest question btw)

I don't see many people discrediting gmaxwell, peterw, wladimir or gmax's software engineering capabilities. Maybe I'm not looking at the right places.

If that's truly a problem then we're shit out of luck cause I don't see any Bitcoin programming jesus coming out to save us. (except Satoshi of course  Cheesy)


BTW, I'd truly like to have your opinion on my sidechain/fiat, bitcoin/gold parallel. Is it not an appropriate analogy?

"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 ... 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] 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 ... 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!