Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 07:17:03 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010266 times)
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2408



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 12:57:32 PM
 #15301

This thread was more interesting to read prior to SC discussion taking over... Roll Eyes

I agree. Now we have to wade through pages of that... it's interesting, but I don't have the time.

I used to come here for news and insights on metals vs. bitcoin and markets in general.

Can't even say wether something was provided regarding the recent metals slamdown (or USD run) because I keep having to skip 5 pages at a time.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
1511205423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511205423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511205423
Reply with quote  #2

1511205423
Report to moderator
1511205423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511205423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511205423
Reply with quote  #2

1511205423
Report to moderator
1511205423
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511205423

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511205423
Reply with quote  #2

1511205423
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 01:08:03 PM
 #15302


The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.


Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere?

Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 01:17:59 PM
 #15303


The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.


Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere?

Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine.


But this is where an altcoin added to the SC could factor in.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 01:20:39 PM
 #15304



Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
 #15305


The value created on the utility sidechain is mirrored in BTC's value. I don't see how you can argue this.

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.


Your argument is predicated upon miners losing revenue from a reducing block reward towards just the transaction fee over time. So far this has been massaged by a rising unit price per bitcoin. If bitcoin is going to continue to dominate and grow as a cryptocurrency, even perhaps supporting several side chains then it will be necessary for the market capitalisation to rise considerably in USD terms, which will negate the need to seek profit elsewhere?

Side chains need to be secured if decentralised by a mining network. If a side chain offers greater rewards to miners than the main bitcoin blockchain, then that side chain if operating through a fixed 'two way peg' must generate revenue for miners through transaction costs alone - except in specialised niche cases (blockchain storage, ultrafast micro payment transactions) people probably arent going to be too keen to pay a lot more to use a less secure chain when bitcoin works just fine.


But this is where an altcoin added to the SC could factor in.

As i have said previously, a fixed two-way peg doesn't IMO endanger the main bitcoin blockchain as long as it is truly fixed.

Where you consider several chains linked together via floating pegs then things get difficult to imagine clearly.

If a sidechain based on an amazing new coin with vastly superior properties to bitcoin (USDcoin) arises which is linked via a floating peg to the main chain then I could conceivably see it causing problems in the long term if lots of coins migrate over and miners decide to move over chasing rewards. But I still think we come back to the same old argument that no altcoin has ever come even slightly close to dethroning btc despite numerous permutations in existence. I personally wouldn't be interested in moving my coins through a floating peg to a side chain, would you?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 01:42:50 PM
 #15306



Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.


We don't believe MM is the only way to secure SC's. I tend to focus on that because I know that is what Hill is  focused on; securing MM from pools as that is the fastest path to success  for them aka hitching their path to  fortunes to the Bitcoin network.

As far as trusted signers? Congratulations on converting Bitcoin to POS. 
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 01:55:44 PM
 #15307



Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.


We don't believe MM is the only way to secure SC's. I tend to focus on that because I know that is what Hill is  focused on; securing MM from pools as that is the fastest path to success  for them aka hitching their path to  fortunes to the Bitcoin network.

As far as trusted signers? Congratulations on converting Bitcoin to POS

Sorry, you do not get it.
 - it is not POS => it can be timestamp-server (I can use bitcoin for timestamping or use existing timestamp service or create new one). It can be hashing oracle.

 - I do not force you to use my timestamp-server => you and your business partners can use your own. You can run your own business network on your VPN.

This is my last reply to this topic.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 02:02:55 PM
 #15308



Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.


We don't believe MM is the only way to secure SC's. I tend to focus on that because I know that is what Hill is  focused on; securing MM from pools as that is the fastest path to success  for them aka hitching their path to  fortunes to the Bitcoin network.

As far as trusted signers? Congratulations on converting Bitcoin to POS.  

Sorry, you do not get it.
 - it is not POS => it can be timestamp-server (I can use bitcoin for timestamping or use existing timestamp service or create new one). It can be hashing oracle.

 - I do not force you to use my timestamp-server => you and your business partners can use your own. You can run your own business network on your VPN.

This is my last reply to this topic.

It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 02:39:32 PM
 #15309


It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 02:43:19 PM
 #15310


It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 03:01:02 PM
 #15311


It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

Simplified payment verification proof can be used on SC and will be created by SC.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 03:03:36 PM
 #15312


It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

Simplified payment verification proof can be used on SC and will be created by SC.

No. To initiate the first transfer requires change in Bitcoin source to construct the SPV proof so that BTC can access SC
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 03:12:37 PM
 #15313

I see a sidecoin as an altcoin, but with an interesting bootstrap method.

The peg is not really possible, unless there is a full reserve, that is, the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist. Forget about independent coin creation in the sidechain aka govcoin. That makes the new sidecoins unbacked, and the peg fails.


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 03:18:23 PM
 #15314


It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

Simplified payment verification proof can be used on SC and will be created by SC.

No. To initiate the first transfer requires change in Bitcoin source to construct the SPV proof so that BTC can access SC

In bitcoin participants will send bitcoins to some addresses. Side chain will observe if all transactions were sent and every tansaction has enough confirmation.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 03:30:52 PM
 #15315


It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

Simplified payment verification proof can be used on SC and will be created by SC.

No. To initiate the first transfer requires change in Bitcoin source to construct the SPV proof so that BTC can access SC

In bitcoin participants will send bitcoins to some addresses. Side chain will observe if all transactions were sent and every tansaction has enough confirmation.

You can try to spin this anyway you like but the SPV proof construction requires a change to the source code to make it happen.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 03:51:56 PM
 #15316


It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force  us to change the source code for your own purposes.  

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were  going to respond to this topic?

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

Simplified payment verification proof can be used on SC and will be created by SC.

No. To initiate the first transfer requires change in Bitcoin source to construct the SPV proof so that BTC can access SC

In bitcoin participants will send bitcoins to some addresses. Side chain will observe if all transactions were sent and every tansaction has enough confirmation.

You can try to spin this anyway you like but the SPV proof construction requires a change to the source code to make it happen.

There is only one change that is required.  Extension to script which can recognise and validate(not create) SPV proof from SC. To withdraw bitcoins back. If we want fully decentralized SC.

But today we can use N of M signatures from trusted entities or oracles.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 04:00:58 PM
 #15317

There is only one change that is required. 

that is the one i've been talking about all along. Roll Eyes
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 04:04:13 PM
 #15318


Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".


I think there is a distinction. Bitcoin proponents who are enthusiastic about SC believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain and don't see the threat.

Where many Proponents pushing for protocol changes actually see them as separate and have devised a mechanism (SC) to do it.
 
The community enthusiasm for SC is evidence people overestimate the resilience of Bitcoin.

I forgot to add that miners if for profit only ones without Bitcoin savings should welcome MM SC as they get a better return on there mining investment and would be handicapped if Bitcoin diminishing block rewards were limited to Bitcoin the dominant Value Chain.

Looking at examples of past pool operators one may even be incentivized and financially motivated to lock value in the side chain with an attack on Bitcoin.

Thanks for reading cypher these ideas are not mine but to be distilled built on or disproved.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 04:08:25 PM
 #15319

There is only one change that is required. 

that is the one i've been talking about all along. Roll Eyes

Is this fundamental change ? This is same as verify multi signature.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 04:19:40 PM
 #15320



Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe  you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Some SC opponents believe.
 1) "To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin. " This is a big mistake.

Co-signed SPV proofs. Introducing signers who must sign off on valid SPV proofs, watching for false proofs. This results in a direct tradeoff between centralisation and security against a high-hashpower attack.

A futuristic idea for a low-value or experimental sidechain is to invoke a trusted authority, whose only job is to execute a trusted setup for a SNARK scheme. Then SC blocks could be constructed which prove their changes to the unspent-output set, but do so in zero-knowledge in the actual transactions. They could even commit to the full verification of all previous SC blocks, allowing new users to get up to speed by verifying only the single latest SC block.

 2) They believe SC is an alt(Shit)Coin.  SC is not new ShitCoin.  SC is new service.

You are correct MM is not the only option. There are others.

My point remains that SC secure BTC but the value is transferred to the SC. So long as Bitcoin is more valuable one will have a motive to redeem the BTC.

So SC are a threat to Bitcoin because they separate The currency for the value in the blockchain. This will distort mining over time and predictability have a negative impact on Bitcoin.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 ... 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!