Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 11:55:30 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 ... 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] 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 06:41:15 PM
 #15341

SC is only solution, how to send bitcoin to the Mars.

1. first, you separate some bitcoins from blockchain (lock them in MC) and create marsSC
2. launch the racket with marsSC to the Mars.
3. now astronauts can use Bitcoin at Mars.
4. after return from Mars simply merge marsSC into MC.

=> SC is not about separating bitcoins from blockchain. It is about dressing blockchain into Space suit.
1513425330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513425330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513425330
Reply with quote  #2

1513425330
Report to moderator
1513425330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513425330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513425330
Reply with quote  #2

1513425330
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513425330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513425330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513425330
Reply with quote  #2

1513425330
Report to moderator
1513425330
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513425330

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513425330
Reply with quote  #2

1513425330
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:09:07 PM
 #15342

Man you people are so dense it's like you refuse to acknowledge the arguments made in most of my previous posts and insist on your incomprehension of the whole dynamics at stake to justify your ignorance.

Let us do it then step by step so you understand where you mistakes are

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.)

Agreed.

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.

This all sounds good to me... except maybe your inference that Sidechains "mess with this". moving on...

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.

Mistake 1 : Sidechains can protect the value through merged mining.
Mistake 2 : A chain that has greater value than Bitcoin = an alt-coin with greater value than Bitcoin. Utility features/services annexed to the main blockchain DO NOT have greater value than Bitcoin, only an alt-coin (supported through a sidechain or not) can claim this. If that is what you are suggesting (altcoin taking over) Sidechains are NOT introducing this risk and do little to enable it. As smooth has pointed out, the creator of such an altcoin would realize it is not necessarily desirable for his coin to utilize a sidechain.

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.

Mistake 3 : Assuming the transfer of scBTC does not generate, by proxy, the movement of economic energy to the main 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.

See Mistake 2 :.

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.

See Mistake 2 :.

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)

Refer to Mistake 2 :. Note also that "I don't think that is a secure strategy" is not a reasonable answer to the argument you have been presented. FACT : it is trivial for miners to merge mine just about any chain and they will if there is ANY value in it.

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.

No different than creating altcoins.
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.

Refer to Mistake 2 :

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

Mistake 4 : Failure to understand that sidechains can preserve the ledger AND allow for more features to the unit in the ledger.

Austin Hill : "The KEY idea here is to protect the concept of digital scarcity and 21 million Bitcoin limit"

This is also a reiteration of your GOVcoin wins scenario which is truly a disturbing though coming from a Bitcoin proponent. See Mistake 2 :

Man,  you crack me up.

A 24yo insolent  kid with a  self admitted shitty job coming in here and insulting everybody when you've only been a member here since February 16, 2014. Where were you in 2011 when we were figuring this whole thing out? Oh yeah, you were 21! How many bitcoin do you own? Are you a butt hurt kid who wants a 2nd shot at Bitcoin at the expense of the rest of us?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:16:41 PM
 #15343

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/453968257197027329
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:21:56 PM
 #15344


That's old, April.

Why hasn't he really said anything recently except for the job thing?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:23:05 PM
 #15345

Man,  you crack me up.

A 24yo insolent  kid with a  self admitted shitty job coming in here and insulting everybody when you've only been a member here since February 16, 2014. Where were you in 2011 when we were figuring this whole thing out? How many bitcoin do you own? Are you a butt hurt kid who wants a 2nd shot at Bitcoin at the expense of the rest of us?

What is pretty hilarious is your failure to answer any of my presented argument with logical counter.

Ad hominem attacks are not helping your cause

"Figuring this whole thing out"  Cheesy You're so funny.

I didn't have the fortune of discovering Bitcoin before late last year. I was actually introduced to it during the previous bubble. I have been buying ever since

I have stated in my other post that most of my capital is invested in BTC.

Quote
Are you a butt hurt kid who wants a 2nd shot at Bitcoin at the expense of the rest of us?

 Roll Eyes

You're starting to sound pretty desperate here cypher


"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
November 02, 2014, 07:38:37 PM
 #15346

Man,  you crack me up.

A 24yo insolent  kid with a  self admitted shitty job coming in here and insulting everybody when you've only been a member here since February 16, 2014. Where were you in 2011 when we were figuring this whole thing out? How many bitcoin do you own? Are you a butt hurt kid who wants a 2nd shot at Bitcoin at the expense of the rest of us?

What is pretty hilarious is your failure to answer any of my presented argument with logical counter.

Ad hominem attacks are not helping your cause

"Figuring this whole thing out"  Cheesy You're so funny.

I didn't have the fortune of discovering Bitcoin before late last year. I was actually introduced to it during the previous bubble. I have been buying ever since

I have stated in my other post that most of my capital is invested in BTC.

Quote
Are you a butt hurt kid who wants a 2nd shot at Bitcoin at the expense of the rest of us?

 Roll Eyes

You're starting to sound pretty desperate here cypher



Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

And i have a track record that supercedes yours. I know that will  anger alot of people but yeah, I think that deserves me to be heard.  and I'm annoyed that you and the community might end up letting guys like GM and Luke perhaps make millions off this while yes,  putting all the rest of us at risk.

Your hubris acting like you know with certainty that there cannot be a bad outcome is highly suspect and naive. I see clear unpredictable economic possibilities which all you SC proponents want to sweep away.
Nekrobios
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


Bitcoin Maximalist


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:44:04 PM
 #15347

Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

And i have a track record that supercedes yours. I know that will  anger alot of people but yeah, I think that deserves me to be heard.  and I'm annoyed that you and the community might end up letting guys like GM and Luke perhaps make millions off this while yes,  putting all the rest of us at risk.

Your hubris acting like you know with certainty that there cannot be a bad outcome is highly suspect and naive. I see clear unpredictable economic possibilities which all you SC proponents want to sweep away.
How would GM/Luke stand to make millions off of Sidechain due to their involvement? Is there some premine? Huh
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:46:24 PM
 #15348

Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

And i have a track record that supercedes yours. I know that will  anger alot of people but yeah, I think that deserves me to be heard.  and I'm annoyed that you and the community might end up letting guys like GM and Luke perhaps make millions off this while yes,  putting all the rest of us at risk.

Your hubris acting like you know with certainty that there cannot be a bad outcome is highly suspect and naive. I see clear unpredictable economic possibilities which all you SC proponents want to sweep away.
How would GM/Luke stand to make millions off of Sidechain due to their involvement? Is there some premine? Huh

Consulting contracts building SC's. For gvts et al. Maybe starting an sidecoin of their own.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:49:34 PM
 #15349

Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

And i have a track record that supercedes yours. I know that will  anger alot of people but yeah, I think that deserves me to be heard.  and I'm annoyed that you and the community might end up letting guys like GM and Luke perhaps make millions off this while yes,  putting all the rest of us at risk.

Your hubris acting like you know with certainty that there cannot be a bad outcome is highly suspect and naive. I see clear unpredictable economic possibilities which all you SC proponents want to sweep away.

You're even more delusional than I thought..

Spamming your thread? I suggested we stop talking about sidechains in this thread a couple of pages ago. Remember your response ?

Your track record doesn't enable you to spew blatant FUD based on illogic and strech of the mind scenarios.

I suggest your put away your tinfoil hat for a moment and present a sensible argument against sidecoins that is not premised with the creation of an altcoin. Until then, your "track record" has taken quite a hit in credibility in the last few days.

"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 02, 2014, 07:50:32 PM
 #15350

Consulting contracts building SC's. For gvts et al. Maybe starting an sidecoin of their own.

Maybe you don't know what you're talking about  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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:55:02 PM
 #15351

There is only one change that is required. 

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

And that change will not be implemented, because that means that something outside bitcoin can control bitcoin.


Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:57:35 PM
 #15352

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.



The bitcoins are always 'locked in' or paralysed as you put it when transferred to a sidechain. But the peg can be whatever the sidechain wants it to be. It can be fixed or it can float. If it floats then the chain is still backed to a degree by bitcoins, but that backing floats depending upon the value of the side chain coin relative to bitcoin.

No it must be fixed. Else it would be an oxymoron. A floating peg? Absurd.



brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 07:57:47 PM
 #15353

Who knows what your motivations are.

My motivation is preventing others who might give too much merit to your "track record" from getting fooled by your delusions.

Considering most, if not all of your concerns have been debunked or dismissed as irrelevant to the existence of sidechains I think most here are curious about YOUR motivation to spread 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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:00:51 PM
 #15354

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.



The bitcoins are always 'locked in' or paralysed as you put it when transferred to a sidechain. But the peg can be whatever the sidechain wants it to be. It can be fixed or it can float. If it floats then the chain is still backed to a degree by bitcoins, but that backing floats depending upon the value of the side chain coin relative to bitcoin.

No it must be fixed. Else it would be an oxymoron. A floating peg? Absurd.

A floating peg is only applicable to coins booted on top of a sidechain (read: altcoin)

Contrarily to what people will have you believe, this is NOT the main use case

"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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:01:11 PM
 #15355

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.

Troubling how after so many pages of arguments on sidechains you can still utter such nonsense

YES the peg is possible. YES there is a full reserve. OF COURSE the bitcoins are paralyzed while the corresponding sidecoins exist.

Correct.  I think its worth clarifying that the peg is algorithmic, because its seems from the thread that some people may not understand that.  You, personally, can ask the network automatically to swap unlimited quantities of BTC on the sidechain for BTC on the main bitcoin chain.

Ok, assuing full reserve. Since there is a peg, the value is not allowed to differ, but still it is two different coins that by themselves would have different value in the market. The result is binary, either the sidecoin takes over (if the value is higher) or it disappears into oblivion (if the value is lower).


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:01:37 PM
 #15356

Au contraire. You're the one spamming my thread. You could just go away or put me on ignore but clearly you won't do that along with odalv. Who knows what your motivations are.

And i have a track record that supercedes yours. I know that will  anger alot of people but yeah, I think that deserves me to be heard.  and I'm annoyed that you and the community might end up letting guys like GM and Luke perhaps make millions off this while yes,  putting all the rest of us at risk.

Your hubris acting like you know with certainty that there cannot be a bad outcome is highly suspect and naive. I see clear unpredictable economic possibilities which all you SC proponents want to sweep away.

You're even more delusional than I thought..

Spamming your thread? I suggested we stop talking about sidechains in this thread a couple of pages ago. Remember your response ?

Your track record doesn't enable you to spew blatant FUD based on illogic and strech of the mind scenarios.

I suggest your put away your tinfoil hat for a moment and present a sensible argument against sidecoins that is not premised with the creation of an altcoin. Until then, your "track record" has taken quite a hit in credibility in the last few days.

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me argue  against updates. It's the severing of the link between the currency unit and the Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:10:33 PM
 #15357

Who knows what your motivations are.

My motivation is preventing others who might give too much merit to your "track record" from getting fooled by your delusions.

Considering most, if not all of your concerns have been debunked or dismissed as irrelevant to the existence of sidechains I think most here are curious about YOUR motivation to spread FUD.

And you just  saying that doesn't make it true though keep trying
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:13:23 PM
 #15358

Consulting contracts building SC's. For gvts et al. Maybe starting an sidecoin of their own.

Maybe you don't know what you're talking about  Huh

And you can guarantee human behavior in perpetuity? 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:15:10 PM
 #15359

Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is. And the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that what you say is true because alot of people have money on the line.

Im not against innovation. That's a stupid allegation. No one saw me arguing against 0.8.1 despite what happened. No one hes me site against updates. It's the supposing of the link between the currency unit and is Blockchain that has me bothered conceptually. And I don't believe it's a seamless efficient 2wp. It's unproven.

On the contrary, I have listened patiently to ALL of your arguments, carefully considered them and debunked most of them as disingenuous or not entirely dependent on the existence of sidechains to exist.

You will indeed be right everytime because everytime your argument faces rebuttal you move the goal post.

So not your final hail mary is : "changing the source code is risky". Did I get this right?

Otherwise, I, again, challenge you to come up with a significant risk scenario that relies on the creration of 1:1 BTC pegged sidechains. Because that is the one true innovation within sidechains. Every other threat you have previously suggested existed before with altcoins.

"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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 08:20:02 PM
 #15360


Your problem is you don't want to listen to any of my arguments. And I'm right simply because of one simple fact: the risk of changing the source code cannot be zero, despite you arguing that it is.  ...

The risk of inserting exponential transaction growth as Gavin wants to try to sneak in as a hard fork is, to me, greater than the risk of increasing the 21 million currency base figure.

Adding a feature as a soft fork to support sidechains is, from a technical structural standpoint, not necessarily a very risky thing.  If it is implemented in a reasonably manner I'll definitely prefer it as the mainline Bitcoin codebase.

In some respects I actually would like to see sidechains implemented exercising a federated paradigm (instead of or in addition to a soft-fork) because development of such a solution has potential to mitigate against other forms of superior resource based attacks.  And thus make them less likely to be attempted.


Pages: « 1 ... 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] 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 ... 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!