Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 08:29:12 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 ... 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] 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010630 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 01:34:30 AM
 #15421

No just you having some skin in the game. Just make a big bet your attitude will change blabbing along when you think you know everything changes when you have something at stake.

I'm not trying to create a win lose proposition. Bitcoin is win win, my economic energy has been growing this idea, I've put a lot of savings on the blockchain knowing the only exit is price.

This changes everything that value can now be extracted leaving me with worthless private keys. No thanks.

Let's see you turn this around I'm selling are you buying?

I'm buying every time I have a penny loose my friend.

It is tragic that a gross misunderstanding would have you sell your Bitcoins.

You have pennies at risk my misunderstanding is your good fortune. Enjoy.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1511252952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511252952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511252952
Reply with quote  #2

1511252952
Report to moderator
1511252952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511252952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511252952
Reply with quote  #2

1511252952
Report to moderator
1511252952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511252952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511252952
Reply with quote  #2

1511252952
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511252952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511252952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511252952
Reply with quote  #2

1511252952
Report to moderator
1511252952
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511252952

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511252952
Reply with quote  #2

1511252952
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 02:21:46 AM
 #15422

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.

 Huh

but it (sidechains) does not do that

Sidechains do not enter in to the comment.  This is what Gavin proposes for Bitcoin.  To me it guarantees that Bitcoin will at some point be controlled by a small number of high powered organizations (unless the hard-fork is rolled back out by another hard fork or Bitcoin fails for other reasons.)

Quote
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." - Albert A. Bartlett

Smart people understand this shortcoming and use it to advantage regularly.

I consider my holding in Bitcoin as a function of 'future value' no different than my holdings in other things.  Thus, I have to mark the future value of Bitcoin down in conjunction with my expectations of it's evolution.  People think who think at all probably think, 'oh, it's 10 years out before it becomes a problem.'  Bitcoin is already 5 years old or so, so 10 years from now isn't that long.  And the technology available to me today vs. 5 years ago is not even close to matching the propositions outlined in Moore's Law.

and I disagree. the moment the 21,000,001 coin appears I'm selling all of my BTC.

I don't expect that you or almost anyone else would agree.  That's why I inserted 'to me' in the statement.  I have something of an orthogonal mind.


iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2014, 02:24:06 AM
 #15423



Buy the rumor; sell the news? 


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 02:32:40 AM
 #15424

...

I agree with all that you have said.

Maybe I need to expand on my thoughts one last time in an effort to have you guys consider where I'm coming from.

I believe that Bitcoin, as is, is the closest form of perfect money we have ever seen.

Its shortcomings, or areas for improvement, in my opinion are as follow :

1. Long confirmation time
2. Privacy (anonymity) option not native as a user-defined option
3. Block size for scaling
4. Possibility that a better mining algorithm exist that could improve decentralization

Aside from the obvious scaling concern, Bitcoin could very well survive as digital gold without seeing any of the improvements I have mentioned. Its fundamentals are THAT strong.

For a long time I envisioned that my previous concerns would be addressed in more centralized type of schemes, or, as some would call it, through off-blockchain transactions.

Now with sidechains, we are provided with the possibility to create these chains that are attached to BTC's mainchain and function in an interoperable way using BTC as their transacting unit, effectively maintaining the ledger.

There, I believe, is our opportunity to create a certain number of sidechains that will work in synergy with the main chain and add considerable value to it.

We do NOT need a BILLION of sidechains. I am in agreement with Adam that it is likely only a relatively small number of them will get the proper developer support and most importantly, miners support. In that regard, I think a lot of people fool themselves into thinking that because the security model proposed in the sidechains paper is merged-mining then all of the sidechains will get this benefit. This is a grave mistake and is exactly why I have been adamant in saying that altcoins booted on top of a sidechain are not, in any way whatsoever, a greater risk to Bitcoin than regular alts are. For this reason, ANY concern that has for a premise the creation of a sidecoin is irrelevant to the discussion as it is NOT enabled by the sidechain proposition.

What we should be discussing and perhaps trying to poke hole in is the use of sidechains as utility features using a unit that is pegged 1:1 with BTC. This, the two-way peg, is the innovation behind the sidechain concept. Everything else has been possible before.

What could these utilities be? Well allow me to return to my list of Bitcoin as money shortcomings :

1. A sidechain allowing for faster transaction times.
2. A sidechain enabling anonymous transactions

My interest in this exercise is Bitcoin as money : store of value, means-of-exchange and unit of account. Traditionally we're looking for these characteristics : scarcity, divisibility, portability, verifiability, recognizability and fungibility. Now, with the proposed sidechains we improve the characteristic of portability (faster transactions) and enable the user-defined additional feature of privacy.

Now cypher here argues that the anonymous sidechain creates a risk for it to potentially to take over as the mainchain. I disagree with that as I see anonymity as a niche market in this world's current settings but I can certainly envision a day where this is no longer true and everyone has a need for 100% private transactions but the day is not now and so that point is moot. Meanwhile the two markets, black and white both can work in synergy and create value for each other.

The same could be said about faster transactions times. At a certain point we might have the technology to make this happen without any security tradeoff but at the moment I believe sidechains is the best decentralized way to go about it.

In this setting, transactions are plentiful in all three chains and miners have an incentive to mine all three of them. The ledger is preserved and there is no dilution or loss of value
 
Having said all of that, what exactly is the "risk created"? If it is that an innovative new sidechain makes Bitcoin obsolete then should we really call that a risk? Is it a risk to create a better form of money? Is Bitcoin a risk? I guess you could say it is but I think all of us here agree that its added value to society is worth the risk.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2014, 03:08:20 AM
 #15425

Maybe you mean there should not necessarily be a peg? Sure, but then it becomes just another altcoin.

There simply is no peg.
The SC contains bitcoin.
This is not a peg, it is a conveyance.
These are different things, and you ought not confuse people by equating them.  It runs counter to your goals.

Not true.

The unit used in the SC is technically not the BTC.

The BTC is not moving around the sidechain, the scBTC unit it represents is.

You don't like the word conveyance.  OK
BTC don't really "move" either, you like the word "represent".
The point is the same though.  It isn't a peg.

And...that's a good thing for SCs.

I like conveyance better than represent, because the scBTC does more than represent BTC, it wraps the currency in a different block chain with different characteristics.  Like putting it in an envelope for more privacy, or to a fast block chain, or to use BTC as the "backing" for a special purpose currency (like a redemption value in a store issued coupon that is worth more BTC if the SC is spent in that store before the expiration date, and after is worth only the BTC value by redeeming it back to the Bitcoin block chain).

The BTC<->scBTC trades will have to gain value to someone in BOTH directions or they just won't happen.  Someone would have to have a reason to move to a SC.  And then they (or someone) would have to have a reason to move back to BTC.  These may not be the same reasons as illustrated above.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:53:40 AM
 #15426

My contribution to the Side Chain discussion Pegged vs. Proof of Burn and why they are two sides of the same Side Chain coin (pun not intended).
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=844617.msg9419689#msg9419689

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 10:00:26 AM
 #15427

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.



but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.


and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 02:06:34 PM
 #15428

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.



but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.


and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)


No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 02:45:22 PM
 #15429

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.



but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.


and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)


No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 02:54:25 PM
 #15430

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.



but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.


and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)


No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements

right.  but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate.  once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever.  meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's.  these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges.  nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system.  they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 03:04:54 PM
 #15431

Considering the apparent serious implementation and backing behind the sidechain, the market starts using it and finds considerable value in it. price of BTC goes UP



why would price do this?

 Huh

People find value in the ability to make anonymous transactions. Buy BTC to use particular sidechain. Price of BTC goes up

ah, but in your world it's not possible for a sidescam to cause the price of BTC to go down?

No.

Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.

wow, listen up everyone!  SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up!  never down!

this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job. 

otoh, please explain to all of us in detail how SC's, real or scam, can only make the BTC price go up?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 03:10:41 PM
 #15432

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.



but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.


and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)


No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements

right.  but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate.  once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever.  meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's.  these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges.  nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system.  they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.

right, but I think we agreed that
1. 1 BTC = 1 scBTC
2. if 1 scBTC will have higher fiat value than BTC then it will not last long time because it will be fast arb. (using bitcoins from MC)
3. locking bitcoin in SC is same as  holding BTC on MC (what if holder die ?)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 03:23:19 PM
 #15433


No.

Is the price of BTC going down because of altscams? In fact, a successful sidescam might push BTC's value up since it would essentially increase the scarcity of the remaining coins.

wow, listen up everyone!  SC's, whether scam or not, can only make the price of BTC go up!  never down!

this is so blatantly economically naive that i am forced to give brg444 a pass; after all, he's a 24 yo kid with a self admitted shitty job. 


according to wikipedia Steve Jobs was 20 something when he founded Apple inc., just saying.
Ad hominem criticisms are always pernicious imho.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 03:58:32 PM
 #15434

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:14:51 PM
 #15435

MM SC costs a lot of resources.
MM SC has to keep(and collect) all transaction from SC.
No one will be able to keep all sc-blockchain (for 1,000,000,000 SC) and MM them.

this sounds reasonable
Quote
=> There will be only few (1 .. 5 ?) MM SC's
MM will be only used for change bitcoin protocol.



but it doesn't solve the increase in mining centralization as only larger mining pools will be able to MM.
You can choose mining pools. Mining pools operators will offer you more than 1 pool. They will offer you
 a) 1 pool for MM SC1,
 b) 1 pool for MM SC2
 c) 1 pool for MM (SC1+SC2)
 d) 1 pool for NO MM

not sure how that helps.  as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM.  since they are the only ones who can derive income from MM, they push out at the very least solo miners and smaller pools.  that's centralization.
Quote
Quote
and it doesn't solve the increased susceptibility to attack.

Please explain, I do not understand. How somebody will attack.

currently mining pie includes Discus 29%, ghash 18%, Knc 7%.  let's say Austin convinces all 3 of these pools to MM his SC.  well, right there all it would take is for Discus unilaterally to perform a 51% attack.  see Peter Todd explanation as to why this might be beneficial for Discus:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2k01du/peter_todd_on_twitter_the_sidechains_paper_is/clgpjpx

>as you said, only larger actors can afford storing the huge data reqs for MM

As I said, there will be only few MM SC. (for purpose of protocol change).
There will be 1B SC's using different security model (oracles, trusted entities, SNARK, .. who knows)

It is possible to create SC what is resilient to 51% attack of MC(every SC what is not MM with MC). This makes 51% attack on MC even more worthless.


and these 1 Billion SC's will move all tx's off the MC making mining failure almost guaranteed.

Not ALL. MC will be clearing network between SC.
It is not possible to change amount of scBTC in SC without MC transaction.
This can keep block size of MC smaller -> more people can run full node (not only few companies)


No. scBTC is interchangeable with  other scBTC.

Clearing system in SC's is  meaningless. Reserve system is meaningless. Once moved to scBTC they are gone and an independent new asset is born and may  never return to MC.

If you have 3 BTC in SC1  and 5 BTC in SC2  then you are only able to change owners of 8 BTC (SC1 will always contains 3 and SC2 5 BTC) => no new BTC can be added/extracted without MC transaction. You can only change owners of this coins.

btw: If you re-read "Appendix A Federated peg" then no changes are required to current bitcoin protocol.
Quote
The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting
functionaries evaluate the script and accept by signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements

right.  but since we were talking about "clearing system" and what you've previously mentioned as "reserve system" in describing Bitcoin in the context of SC's, i just want ppl to be clear that those two descriptions are inaccurate.  once BTC escape the Bitcoin MC over to a SC in the form of scBTC, they could be gone forever.  meaning that they are newly created assets within a new blockchain/ledger system with their own properties and which can be traded with other scBTC's on other SC's.  these will have their own fiat pricing and exchanges.  nothing mandates that these scBTC "clear" or get routed back thru a Bitcoin MC "reserve" system.  they are independent and may be gone from the Bitcoin MC forever.

right, but I think we agreed that
1. 1 BTC = 1 scBTC
2. if 1 scBTC will have higher fiat value than BTC then it will not last long time because it will be fast arb. (using bitcoins from MC)
3. locking bitcoin in SC is same as  holding BTC on MC (what if holder die ?)

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

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

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:17:31 PM
 #15436

@cypherdoc

Did you realize that there already may be sidechain what fast arb. on exchanges.
Nobody asked us. They just created it.

I love that innovation that's the future, just don't enable it in the Bitcoin protocol.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:21:55 PM
 #15437

ohh 777 i like it Smiley



edit: BTW: The Best And Worst Performing Assets In The Most Volatile Month In Years
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-03/here-are-best-and-worst-performing-assets-most-volatile-month-years
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:23:08 PM
 #15438

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:35:40 PM
 #15439

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
If that is true, then the reverse is true


Quote
How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)


1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:39:26 PM
 #15440

Regarding point 2. - how big did you think Bitcoin could scale? - after a SC has more fiat value assuming thirs fiat is interchangeable for real wealth not just zim$, at this time the side chain can scale to bigger than Bitcoin and via the arb. If we are thinking things like Bitcoin will have a market cap of gold in a couple of years, this value must come from an investment into Bitcoin.  With a SC token one could investing in the side chain and grow that overtime if one intended to invest over $4 billion there would be nothing left on the Bitcoin blockchain, and the SC would be the master chain.

How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)

1. move BTC into SC and create more scBTC
2. sell scBTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap BTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if SC has all bitcoins then SC is better coin.
If that is true, then the reverse is true


Quote
How many do you need to repeat this.

symetric 2-way-peg (you are free to move in and out 1:1 conversion rate)


1. move scBTC into MC and create more BTC
2. sell BTC -> extract fiat
3. buy more cheap scBTC
4. goto 1


edit:
if MC has all bitcoins then MC is better coin.

Reverse is true if you find at least one fool who will sell you scBTC for cheap. b/c He can convert to BTC themself.  :-)
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 ... 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!