Bitcoin Forum
October 18, 2017, 12:32:57 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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] 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1995187 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 09:44:20 PM
 #15241

Well, the SCs would have reduced purchasing power. If they want their purchasing power back, they have to convert back. And like I said before, if it is easy enough to convert back, it sure beats dealing with some new and illiquid scamcoin exchanges.

no, you're missing the time element.

initially, when a SC is first established, trading prices in fiat for scBTC will be lower b/c they are riding on a less secure sidechain..  we can expect this b/c of newness, less security from MM, possible failure, unproven innovation.  as time goes on, and as arb bots can be confident that the SC is relatively stable and they won't lose any scBTC that they buy in arbing from a SC failure, they will enter the market to buy up scBTC (price rises) while at the same time selling BTC (price drops) until they create a new equilibrium price for both which will closely match but result in a lower price for BTC.  multiply this by a 1000x SC's.

it's kinda like the one's closest to the Fed when it first release QE into the fiat system and it's value is highest until its inflationary effects spread throughout the system. only this is in reverse.

That is simply not true. No one will sell you scBTC for less than BTC. He will offer feature/utility on higher price than actually BTC has.  If you buy then I'll make money. If you do not buy then I'll withdraw to BTC.
1508286777
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508286777

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508286777
Reply with quote  #2

1508286777
Report to moderator
1508286777
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508286777

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508286777
Reply with quote  #2

1508286777
Report to moderator
1508286777
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508286777

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508286777
Reply with quote  #2

1508286777
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508286777
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508286777

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508286777
Reply with quote  #2

1508286777
Report to moderator
Nekrobios
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


Bitcoin Maximalist


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 09:48:03 PM
 #15242

Initially we can't expect shit IMO, because the volume will be low, and that's assuming some credible exchange lists SCs. The amount that is arbed until the price gets close shouldn't be too high. I'm certain that if a credible exchange took it up and it actually had significant volume while being substantially below peg rate, despite any doubts of people with newly converted to SCs, the pressure up would be far higher than the pressure down.

Why a thousand SCs? Are people really going to flow to so many, or do you expect them to do it in series as one gets deserted after the other?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 09:49:15 PM
 #15243

No one will sell you scBTC for less than BTC.

and this is not necessarily true.  remember, this is NOT an efficient peg with seamless transition back and forth btwn BTC <--> scBTC.  there is at least a 2d delay.

someone caught in scBTC made need to rush liquidate scBTC for less fiat on an exchange  for any one of a number of reasons.  and then there is shorting as Adrian alluded to earlier.
Nekrobios
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


Bitcoin Maximalist


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 09:50:29 PM
 #15244

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 09:59:40 PM
 #15245

No one will sell you scBTC for less than BTC.

and this is not necessarily true.  remember, this is NOT an efficient peg with seamless transition back and forth btwn BTC <--> scBTC.  there is at least a 2d delay.

someone caught in scBTC made need to rush liquidate scBTC for less fiat on an exchange  for any one of a number of reasons.  and then there is shorting as Adrian alluded to earlier.


I agree with you. It will create new market. But this market will start at 1:1 and participants who start new market are not willing to take loss. They offers new feature. If there is not market for new feature, they will terminate sidechain withdrawing bitcoins.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 10:03:27 PM
 #15246

Initially we can't expect shit IMO, because the volume will be low, and that's assuming some credible exchange lists SCs. The amount that is arbed until the price gets close shouldn't be too high. I'm certain that if a credible exchange took it up and it actually had significant volume while being substantially below peg rate, despite any doubts of people with newly converted to SCs, the pressure up would be far higher than the pressure down.

Why a thousand SCs? Are people really going to flow to so many, or do you expect them to do it in series as one gets deserted after the other?

there will be thousands b/c it's just software.  no real work involved.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 10:09:53 PM
 #15247

Initially we can't expect shit IMO, because the volume will be low, and that's assuming some credible exchange lists SCs. The amount that is arbed until the price gets close shouldn't be too high. I'm certain that if a credible exchange took it up and it actually had significant volume while being substantially below peg rate, despite any doubts of people with newly converted to SCs, the pressure up would be far higher than the pressure down.

Why a thousand SCs? Are people really going to flow to so many, or do you expect them to do it in series as one gets deserted after the other?

there will be thousands b/c it's just software.  no real work involved.

Yes, BUT some are world wide and some are local.
Nekrobios
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


Bitcoin Maximalist


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 10:11:40 PM
 #15248

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?
Why avoid this question? I really am curious. What's there to stop the Sidecoins induced fall to nothingness?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 10:40:46 PM
 #15249

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?
Why avoid this question? I really am curious. What's there to stop the Sidecoins induced fall to nothingness?

well, there's always hope it doesn't go thru.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 10:49:10 PM
 #15250

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?
Why avoid this question? I really am curious. What's there to stop the Sidecoins induced fall to nothingness?

or maybe that it will provide endless opportunities to manipulate.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 10:57:54 PM
 #15251

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?
Why avoid this question? I really am curious. What's there to stop the Sidecoins induced fall to nothingness?

... maybe cypherdoc is spreading FUD so he can buy more BTC lower ... who knows?

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 11:01:31 PM
 #15252

I hugely disagree with the belief that sidechains will decrease the value of Bitcoin. Having more uses for the Bitcoin blockchain will almost certainly increase its value, rather than decreasing it.

Do you believe that Bitcoin the currency is separate from Bitcoin the distributed ledger?
If you do then yes Bitcoin the ledger can be used without Bitcoin the currency. (Make the protocol change)

Finding uses for Bitcoin the blockchain that are separate from the currency are a threat to Bitcoin the currency.

If you believe Bitcoin the currency is Bitcoin the ledger then separating them threaten Bitcoin.

I see all the value that SC enable, I also see some situations where the SC is more valuable than Bitcoin and in those situations bitcoins value leaks into the SC it's not that Bitcoin is beet by competition it's the SC that has enabled a mechanism that exploited Bitcoin.

Cypher has given examples and there are others too.

1:1 pegs are a dream. They will only exist within a trusted and controlled system.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 11:09:00 PM
 #15253

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?
Why avoid this question? I really am curious. What's there to stop the Sidecoins induced fall to nothingness?

... maybe cypherdoc is spreading FUD so he can buy more BTC lower ... who knows?

or maybe my explanations simply explain why the market is dropping?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 11:28:05 PM
 #15254

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I haven't visited this thread in 2 days look what I see when I pop up in here, cypherdoc still doesn't sidechains and clings on to failed arguments

"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
November 01, 2014, 11:38:21 PM
 #15255

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

It is not an abuse of position when the proposition adds considerable value to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The devs are suggesting a protocol change that benefits Bitcoin and the fact is we can expect the same out of Blockstream. Unlike what your twisted mind would like to think, their goal is not to create some kind of malicious sidechain that will take Bitcoin over and have them profit as early movers. They intend to build infrastructure on top of Bitcoin with the help of the sidechain features.

I only see value added so I fail to see how unethical the situation is.

"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
November 01, 2014, 11:42:00 PM
 #15256

Why would anyone sell scBTC for $100 when they can transfer them to BTC and sell them for $325?

/argument

"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: 1372



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 11:44:19 PM
 #15257

No emerging SC market will have higher liquidity than the BTC markets. If there is little friction to converting BTC <> SC, then the preferable way will be to convert and sell on the BTCUSD markets, and this can only be done so many times. And of course, converting BTC > SC would serve to make Bitcoin more scarce.

are you so sure?
A SC with the transaction volume of visa would be way more valuable than Bitcoin today.

Lets also entertain the idea that the Bitcoin block reward has diminished to 1.5BTC per block and the high volume tx fees happen on a SC, mining efforts will go where the money is, which chain would be more secure?

The higher liquidity of the SC would make Bitcoin irrelevant.

Why I see this as the ultimate outcome is precisely because of the peg. Every failed attempt to superseded Bitcoins liquidity  results in no risk or loss in Bitcoin, but when one is successful it sucks the value right out of Bitcoin.

The real threat is for every 1 person who believes in a fixed money supply there are 10,000 who think the money supply should have a mild inflation. They are the ones on the fiat demand side of the SC and bitcoiners are the ones arbing untill the other chain is the more valuable.

So what I see happening (and I'm hoping someone will give me a rational answer that proves this understanding false - excluding the ass holes who pm me calling me stupid and my understanding BS) is; an inflationary SC could come along - all those central bankers who say we like Bitcoin the blockchain just not the currency, have a 10,000 to 1 advantage when it comes to shifting value.

In effect SC are the enabling technology to use the blockchain to back other assets, that's all fine as long as those assets never become more valuable than Bitcoin. But why create them if you are not wanting them to be more valuable than Bitcoin. What happens if the SC assets become more valuable than Bitcoin the 1:1 peg becomes irrelevant, and no one goes back into Bitcoin.

The net effect is one has used the Bitcoin blockchain to create inflation.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 11:46:04 PM
 #15258

we really haven't focused on the ethics of what gmax and the other core devs are doing.

i know the argument goes like this; they're the brightest minds in Bitcoin who have done so much for us we should be thankful, they have "positions" in BTC so they would NEVER do anything to harm Bitcoin, they deserve it, we should WANT them to be paid, SC's are neutral and are just trying to help Bitcoin, all you skeptics "just don't get it", etc.

well, the fact of the matter is we do get it.  we've flushed out alot right here in this thread.  and all of this technical babble has ignored the fact that what they are doing is unethical.  abusing one's privileged position as a core dev and pushing for a very specific and unique change in the source code, while simultaneously creating a for-profit company that seeks to profit off said change is unethical.  i asked gmax in the AMA whether he thought he should step down as core dev due to what is to any objective person a conflict of interest.  he said he thought that was "unreasonable" followed closely by LukeJr who said the same. LukeJr then launched off on a rant about how we should "want them to get paid".  nice spin Luke.  i don't have a problem with you starting a private company but not while taking advantage of your position. at least in the real world of banksters, there are plenty of examples where ppl step down b/c of conflicts of interest for reasons even more remotely unrelated than this.  these guys don't get it.  Satoshi spent at least 2 yrs of his life developing Bitcoin without being paid, so there. AND he hasn't cashed in any of his BTC that we know of to profit from Bitcoin.  now that's public service for you.  one might argue that should be the standard for Bitcoin.  maybe we need/deserve core devs who don't have gmax or Luke's attitudes?  Bitcoin has the potential to become a global currency so an argument can be made that it should be maintained for the public good. i for one think there are plenty of devs who would love to step up and replace those guys.

alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now.  this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

It is not an abuse of position when the proposition adds considerable value to the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The devs are suggesting a protocol change that benefits Bitcoin and the fact is we can expect the same out of Blockstream. Unlike what your twisted mind would like to think, their goal is not to create some kind of malicious sidechain that will take Bitcoin over and have them profit as early movers. They intend to build infrastructure on top of Bitcoin with the help of the sidechain features.

I only see value added so I fail to see how unethical the situation is.

the burden of proof is on you and the proponents of this change to show as close to a shadow of a doubt that what you propose is an improvement to the system and adds value.  i could equally say it may destroy the system and i have given plenty of reasons why it think it could.

if you want to call me twisted then i could equally call you a naive 24 yo kid.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
November 01, 2014, 11:54:13 PM
 #15259

I do want to ask though, does this mean you're bearish on Bitcoin now?
Why avoid this question? I really am curious. What's there to stop the Sidecoins induced fall to nothingness?

... maybe cypherdoc is spreading FUD so he can buy more BTC lower ... who knows?

or maybe my explanations simply explain why the market is dropping?

... half-kidding around of course.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 11:55:25 PM
 #15260

but 1BTC on MC =! 1 scBTC on SC in fiat terms. and that is the result of less security being on a different blockchain/ledger.

the equilibrium fiat price will be lower.

since you have such a hard on for the man Konrad Graf here is a quote from his paper :

Quote
The particular SBS must then offer added value sufficient to more than offset these negative factors from the   point   of view of users.

Let us the use then one of your favorite use case :

The 1:1 pegged Anonymous sidechain.

Let's assume now that such a sidechain is developed and after numerous reviews is vetted to be secure by some important industry members and other devs/coders. Remember it is all open-source and obviously long considerations and ajustements will be necessary before we obtain the correct product.

Assuming we do, the question everyone will then have to consider is : is the added value of properly implemented and securely designed anonymity built on top of Bitcoin valuable enough to offset the POSSIBLE (but not guaranteed) issues of securing the sidechain and ensuring proper implementation of the peg.

"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 ... 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] 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 ... 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!