Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:23:52 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807334 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 11:11:24 PM
 #15041


Then Bitcoin becomes the central clearing house, reserve & store of value chain while other chains are left to operate daily transactions for better efficiency.

People have been proposing this very idea for awhile but assumed the transactions would be handled off-chain by semi-centralized entities. Sidechain removes the need for that.

Miners can mine BTC & the sidechain. I'm not sure where you get the idea they have to choose between the two.

OT servers can do the same thing and give all alts a chance, let it be a market need driven innovation.

in my view Blockstream have an advantage, but aside from that changing the SC protocol to exclude MM could happen,


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1481325832
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325832

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325832
Reply with quote  #2

1481325832
Report to moderator
1481325832
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325832

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325832
Reply with quote  #2

1481325832
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 11:17:57 PM
 #15042

Bitcoin block rewards shrink as we know, but soon like 6 years it would be feasible to consider the transaction fee making up a significant part of the block reward. moving those fees to a SC would degrade Bitcoin. 

Miners mine both chains. They profit no matter where the transactions take place.

and bitcoins move into the side chain, and the Bitcoin network shrivels, and stop growing because miners cant make a profit from the transaction fees.

Again, miners don't have to choose one chain to mine. They can and will profit from mining the two.

your vision of bitcoin being the backing for all of chain growth is only viable so long as Bitcoin is the MC, when it stops being the MC due to the Metacafe's law the SC will absorb and shake themselves of it, the SC may have an inflation sachem that rewards miners in a more favorably, be better amalgamated with the Banking carrells and it is not a stretch to see bitcoin being abandoned, or even needed.

SC that take improve on bitcoins utility do it by inflating value off chain, and bitcoin dosn't grow the SC grows.

I'm not convinced by your theory that Bitcoins locked on 1:1 peg creates a new network that competes with Bitcoin's. As for the second part of your comment, it defeats logic to suggest Bitcoin would be defeated by an inflationary sidechain with closer ties to the banking cartels. It is straight up ridiculous in fact.
   
the issue is you get the value leaking problem if the SC are beneficial. anonymity isn't so great when you want to prove you made a payment. at this point in time it is the No. 1 Killer app as there are lots of stolen coins wanting to come out, and it would help Bitcoin grow like in silk road commerce.

but ultimately Bitcoins Pseudonymity is forcing decentralized trust free serves like OpenBazaar and OT exchanges where your identity is never revealed, or if it is you chose which one. Decentralized and trust free everything is much more valuable then anonymous BTC, in a decentralized trust free world Pseudonymity is anonymity 

I agree 100% with your comments on transparency and anonymity but I take problem with your "value leaking" theory. There is no value leaking, it is an essentially an ecosystem sharing value in a synergic manner.

"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 30, 2014, 11:19:13 PM
 #15043

People have been proposing this because they are economically ignorant.

There is no such thing as intrinsic value. Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.

Before you start talking about gold - no, it won't work that way.

Prior to central banks, gold behaved as a store of value because it was used as a medium of exchange.

After central banks, gold behaved as a store of value because of taxation.

Bitcoin could never survive as a high-fee settlement currency because high fees would arise due to block size rationing, not because transactions should naturally cost that much for technical reasons. Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.

High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive. Yes, getting there is a difficult technical problem to solve. Deal with it.

Just quoting this because it distills my understanding further, with a cupped hands and raised voice in bold.  thanks,

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 11:26:36 PM
 #15044


well said, the problem isn't technical its adoption of the idea or cryptocurrency, everything flows from faith in Bitcoin.

Exactly.  That is why I don't want to see Bitcoin balloon to the point where it is impractical for smaller players to be full peers.  Preferably individuals if possible.  More than that, I want to see core Bitcoin be small enough so that it could use non-corporate communications channels if the solution is attacked by that sector which I see as a high probability event in the case of the next economic crisis.

Even the threat of eventually just saying 'fuck it' with respect to pruning and making a simplistic tweak to just expand the transaction rate (block size) has been enough to make me that much more inclined to sell out, and I did a fair amount of that at the beginning of the year.  Even if Bitcoin can be pretty big riding on the backs of the large corporate players it's just not a very interesting solution to me at that point.

Sidechains, or seeing some real progress toward them before it's to late, has been most inspiring to me indeed and has reinvigorated my hopes for Bitcoin.

The race now seems to be between the Bitcoin Foundation guys trying to get Gavin's exponential growth in place and the blockstream guys trying to save Bitcoin to be something similar to what it was advertised to be when I first took a position.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 30, 2014, 11:29:39 PM
 #15045


Bitcoin block rewards shrink as we know, but soon like 6 years it would be feasible to consider the transaction fee making up a significant part of the block reward. moving those fees to a SC would degrade Bitcoin.  

Miners mine both chains. They profit no matter where the transactions take place.
[/quote]

I mine, i used to MM NameCoin, i dropped it because it wasn't worth the effort and the 2% pool fee i sacrificed on by BTC. nameCoin's fate could happen to Bitcoin, also 14 years form now we may choose to drop bitcoin altogether because its not needed anymore, it worked as a seed for the SC's.    

edit:
I agree 100% with your comments on transparency and anonymity but I take problem with your "value leaking" theory. There is no value leaking, it is an essentially an ecosystem sharing value in a synergic manner.

mining must also go through a market evolution, it must stop growing as some point. locking in to PoW MM for ever is not evolution it is manipulation, who knows the bitcoin killer may use proof of Bandwidth or proof of Block Archiving. if you do that with a SC I think Bitcoin would become obsolete as the value will leak into the SC as fast as rewards diminish. 


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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 11:36:27 PM
 #15046

Bitcoin block rewards shrink as we know, but soon like 6 years it would be feasible to consider the transaction fee making up a significant part of the block reward. moving those fees to a SC would degrade Bitcoin.  

Miners mine both chains. They profit no matter where the transactions take place.

I mine, i used to MM NameCoin, i dropped it because it wasn't worth the effort and the 2% pool fee i sacrificed on by BTC. nameCoin's fate could happen to Bitcoin, also 14 years form now we may choose to drop bitcoin altogether because its not needed anymore, it worked as a seed for the SC's.    

I'm sorry but this is a very, very shaky parallel to make.

If Bitcoin is not needed it is only because a better store of value will have appeared. If it is so then let it be, but I don't find it likely since Bitcoin has worked exceptionnaly well so far, benefits from a considerable network effect and has very sound fundamentals.

"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, 11:39:23 PM
 #15047


mining must also go through a market evolution, it must stop growing as some point. locking in to PoW MM for ever is not evolution it is manipulation, who knows the bitcoin killer may use proof of Bandwidth or proof of Block Archiving. if you do that with a SC I think Bitcoin would become obsolete as the value will leak into the SC as fast as rewards diminish. 


so essentially your concern is now that Bitcoin gets replaced because a better technology came along  Huh


"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
DonDev
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 189

doges.org Owner


View Profile WWW
October 30, 2014, 11:43:23 PM
 #15048

Nothing can replace bitcoin.
Bitcoin for life  Wink

★★     http://doges.org/ The Official Dogecoin Forum, Over 15000 members and worlds 2nd biggest Crypto Forum  ★★
★★1000 free dogecoins FAUCET http://doges.org/(giveaways)/doges-org-faucet-get-5-10-dogecoins-for-free-daily/
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 30, 2014, 11:49:42 PM
 #15049

Nothing can replace bitcoin.
Bitcoin for life  Wink

who knows. before 2009 no one thought we could replace gold as a store of value.

"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 30, 2014, 11:50:21 PM
 #15050

Bitcoin block rewards shrink as we know, but soon like 6 years it would be feasible to consider the transaction fee making up a significant part of the block reward. moving those fees to a SC would degrade Bitcoin.  

Miners mine both chains. They profit no matter where the transactions take place.

I mine, i used to MM NameCoin, i dropped it because it wasn't worth the effort and the 2% pool fee i sacrificed on by BTC. nameCoin's fate could happen to Bitcoin, also 14 years form now we may choose to drop bitcoin altogether because its not needed anymore, it worked as a seed for the SC's.    

I'm sorry but this is a very, very shaky parallel to make.

If Bitcoin is not needed it is only because a better store of value will have appeared. If it is so then let it be, but I don't find it likely since Bitcoin has worked exceptionnaly well so far, benefits from a considerable network effect and has very sound fundamentals.

I'm going to quote Justus again  Smiley
Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
.... Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive.

Metcalfe's law was my way of thinking about it, I'm happy for something better to come along, i believe bitcoin is a better store of value because the the economic energy maintaining the ledger stays in the ecosystem. as soon as bitcoins move into a SC the SC benefits with no downside risk, the locked scBTC has no value as the value is in the SC tokens. if it goes bad just get a computer to refund your BTC, if it succeeds then the value is gone for good it resided in the SC, theoretically you can convert it back but why?  it seems to me the more SC grow the less valuable BTC becomes.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 12:00:08 AM
 #15051


mining must also go through a market evolution, it must stop growing as some point. locking in to PoW MM for ever is not evolution it is manipulation, who knows the bitcoin killer may use proof of Bandwidth or proof of Block Archiving. if you do that with a SC I think Bitcoin would become obsolete as the value will leak into the SC as fast as rewards diminish. 


so essentially your concern is now that Bitcoin gets replaced because a better technology came along  Huh


its not better technology that will replace bitcoin its better propaganda and consumer confidence keepers, some improvment i can see implemented in SC adjusting the fixed supply to a constant 3% economic growth stimulates (because economists think moderate monetary growth is good)  increasing the tx fees, we need more miners for security, and teh proponents saying you the people, listen up, we have embraced bitcoin's blockchain technology its been improved and is safe for consumer adoption, were moving our national currency into the blockchain.

and in the blink of an eye Bitcoins tiny billion dollar market cap is absorbed and assimilated and usurped. Replaced  not by better tech but by confidence spinning.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 12:12:04 AM
 #15052


I'm going to quote Justus again  Smiley
Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
...

Using a properly implemented sidechain IS using Bitcoin.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 12:16:32 AM
 #15053

I'm going to quote Justus again  Smiley
Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
.... Bitcoin would lose out to a competing currency with less/no rationing that would be less expensive to use for settlements.
High transaction rates on the main chain are the only way for Bitcoin to survive.

Metcalfe's law was my way of thinking about it, I'm happy for something better to come along, i believe bitcoin is a better store of value because the the economic energy maintaining the ledger stays in the ecosystem. as soon as bitcoins move into a SC the SC benefits with no downside risk, the locked scBTC has no value as the value is in the SC tokens. if it goes bad just get a computer to refund your BTC, if it succeeds then the value is gone for good it resided in the SC, theoretically you can convert it back but why?  it seems to me the more SC grow the less valuable BTC becomes.  

I don't see how his quote helps you much.

The SC, to me, is part of the ecosystem, unless it issues a different token on its own chain.

I take objections with the kind of statements that suggest it "could go bad". A sidechain using a 1:1 peg of BTC as its unit cannot go bad from my point of view because they are UTILITY chains. Either they execute their purpose as designed or they don't. Only suckers will want to speculate with these type of chains.

I think we all agree that Bitcoin is good enough right now and actually pretty close to being perfect as is. As I have mentionned above, its only shortcomings are in its transportive properties : confirmation times and inability to provide private transactions natively. This leads me to believe these two aspects are likely the only ones that who will lead to the creation of utility sidechains that are used as subsets of Bitcoin-money. In all honesty, is there anything more we need from Bitcoin, as a mean of exchange, than faster confirmation time and a privacy option? I don't think so.

Thousands of other sidechains will be created for different purposes but none will be competing with Bitcoin for its position as crypto-money. Some might try, but will realise they will be better off applying their competing idea to an actual altcoin.

Back to my two utility sidechains : these will never take over Bitcoin as they are effectively serving only a certain application or subset of money. Considering these two applications are using a BTC-peg as their transacting unit they are, barring some technicalities, a part of the Bitcoin network and closely tied to the native bitcoin unit, so much in fact that their 1:1 value will always gravitate toward each others and this correlation will become narrower as arbitrage comes into effect and time allows the technology to mature.


"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 31, 2014, 12:21:07 AM
 #15054

its not better technology that will replace bitcoin its better propaganda and consumer confidence keepers, some improvment i can see implemented in SC adjusting the fixed supply to a constant 3% economic growth stimulates (because economists think moderate monetary growth is good)  increasing the tx fees, we need more miners for security, and teh proponents saying you the people, listen up, we have embraced bitcoin's blockchain technology its been improved and is safe for consumer adoption, were moving our national currency into the blockchain.

and in the blink of an eye Bitcoins tiny billion dollar market cap is absorbed and assimilated and usurped. Replaced  not by better tech but by confidence spinning.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

my man, I have to say you almost had me. I, for one second, had the impression I was conversing with a smart fellow. You should be ashamed of such deception.

your argument is GOVcoin, with inflationary features and corporate sponsors will kill Bitcoin?

well my friend, this is the beauty of cryptocurrency. the democracy of money, where people vote with their $ (or BTC) and may the best man win.

let them have their attempt at GOVcoin and the free market will decide who the winner is.

I, for one, will have no part in it but I wish them luck. they will need lots of it.

"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 31, 2014, 12:23:52 AM
 #15055


I'm going to quote Justus again  Smiley
Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
...

Using a properly implemented sidechain IS using Bitcoin.



+1

"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
nanobrain
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756


Dumb broad


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 12:45:02 AM
 #15056

its not better technology that will replace bitcoin its better propaganda and consumer confidence keepers, some improvment i can see implemented in SC adjusting the fixed supply to a constant 3% economic growth stimulates (because economists think moderate monetary growth is good)  increasing the tx fees, we need more miners for security, and teh proponents saying you the people, listen up, we have embraced bitcoin's blockchain technology its been improved and is safe for consumer adoption, were moving our national currency into the blockchain.

and in the blink of an eye Bitcoins tiny billion dollar market cap is absorbed and assimilated and usurped. Replaced  not by better tech but by confidence spinning.

snip....cultist droning...snip

Yeah, yeah..."come the revolution".

Always a day awaaay.

nothing to see here
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 12:45:46 AM
 #15057


I'm going to quote Justus again  Smiley
Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
...

Using a properly implemented sidechain IS using Bitcoin.



+1
I still need to understand how, to me it looks like using ones Bitcoin as collateral while one uses a SC's utility.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
October 31, 2014, 12:48:56 AM
 #15058


I'm going to quote Justus again  Smiley
Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
...

Using a properly implemented sidechain IS using Bitcoin.



+1

you sure are one desperate dude.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 31, 2014, 12:53:40 AM
 #15059

I still need to understand how, to me it looks like using ones Bitcoin as collateral while one uses a SC's utility.

well technically this is what it is. but being that the peg is 1:1 and that they are utility chains that are application specific, their value will mirror BTC's. this does not make them fungible : as others have pointed out and as is properly explained in Konrad Graf's paper, various cost, risks and uncertainties will initially create a likely discount of the BTCpeg (if it were to be traded on the open market, for example). in all likelyhood though, market maturity, infrastructure reinforcement and arbitrage should help narrow that gap significantly in the long term.


"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 31, 2014, 12:56:03 AM
 #15060

you sure are one desperate dude.


 Huh

As much as I like to argue irrational conspiracy theories such as yours it is only right that I recognize those that are more reasonable in their use of logic and refrain from posting FUD

"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 ... 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!