Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 01:16:00 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 ... 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] 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011309 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:52:37 PM
 #15441

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.

as far as arbing goes, i agree that it will be done.  it's the consequences of that where i disagree with you.

once again, you're taking a chunk of highly valued, highly secure BTC from a blockchain ledger thats never been hacked and moving them over to an insecure blockchain ledger that has every potential of being hacked.  those scBTC will be less valued straight away.  as arbitrage begins to kick in, the equilibrium will result in a lower BTC price.

we've already seen evidence of this dynamic playing out in the market place; Adrian-X.  he's front running/selling b/c of this leeching of value that he and others perceive.  yes, i'll go out on a limb and say that is why the BTC price has been falling since the whitepaper.  see chart i posted above.  it's quite probable  dumping comes in stages with each incremental step that the Blockstream ppl are able to advance their for-profit ball.
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.
1511356560
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356560

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356560
Reply with quote  #2

1511356560
Report to moderator
1511356560
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511356560

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511356560
Reply with quote  #2

1511356560
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 04:53:48 PM
 #15442

@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.

exactly.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:05:48 PM
 #15443

@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.
[/quote

exactly.
That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:07:48 PM
 #15444


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

Give me 7 good programmers and $600,000,000 and this proposed change to the Bitcoin protocol and I'll be close to guaranteeing this outcome if I am wrong sell scBTC -> BTC extract fiat.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:10:26 PM
 #15445

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?

The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact.

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:13:30 PM
 #15446

...

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.

brg444, wholly agree with this. I think it is a great summary.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:13:31 PM
 #15447

@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.
[/quote

exactly.
That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

so first you tell us to trust the results of a Federated pegging server system as evidence that a SC is working, then, you tell us to adopt the SC innovation into the MC because you can't trust the Federated peg.

uh huh.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:16:31 PM
 #15448

@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.

exactly.
That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

No you are wrong SC as proposed secure BTC not the value - OT or oracles secure Both BTC and the value.

If we may already have what you think sided chains are why propose the protocol change.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:20:06 PM
 #15449

@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.
[/quote

exactly.
That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

so first you tell us to trust the results of a Federated pegging server system as evidence that a SC is working, then, you tell us to adopt the SC innovation into the MC because you can't trust the Federated peg.

uh huh.

You will finally understand it. When you will see how  decentralized Exchange works you will want to use it. You will see what is added value -> new functionality (not new currency)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:29:55 PM
 #15450

For those who dont know what OT is it is an open trust free toolkit that can do exactly what Side Chains propose to do.

it doesn't require Bitcoin or Bitcoin to be successful or leverage Bitcoins success it is independent it is just an innovation multiplier.

with OT http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page you can launch a  token coin with the same properties you seek in SC's - they call it Cash, or a decentralized exchange, and you can do everything else, and there is no risk to bitcoin the blockchain.

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

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:39:26 PM
 #15451

@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.
[/quote

exactly.
That is a feature of SC. You do need to add it in the Bitcoin protocol.
 - you will see, when first Federated peg will be created and bitcoinSC will be created for testing purposes. (will work same as Bitcoin + SC suport)
 - then inside bitcoinSC will be created decentralized exchangeSC and decentralized webWalletSC
 - and then you will want to adopt SC feature into MC b/c you will not trust Federated peg

so first you tell us to trust the results of a Federated pegging server system as evidence that a SC is working, then, you tell us to adopt the SC innovation into the MC because you can't trust the Federated peg.

uh huh.

You will finally understand it. When you will see how  decentralized Exchange works you will want to use it. You will see what is added value -> new functionality (not new currency)

I am looking forward to Decentralized exchanges SC dont just enable those other technologies can do it safer see OT, SC are another species and its you who hasn't addressed the problems they propose. (I presume for lack of understanding)

SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:48:57 PM
 #15452

isnt there already "decentralized exchanges" as in OTC channels?
I cant wrap my mind as to how such decentralized exchange would be implemented otherwise.
People keep invoking such concept as the holy grail but i find it hard to imagine how it should work. what am i missing Huh

ps: SCs.. yuck.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 06:03:10 PM
 #15453

You will finally understand it. When you will see how  decentralized Exchange works you will want to use it. You will see what is added value -> new functionality (not new currency)

I think Bitcoin proponents who are Side Chane enthusiasts will finally understand when a Side Chane takes over with less desirable qualities than Bitcoin provides its proponents today - or not, the argument that Bitcoin was an experiment due to fail anyway will still be valid.


Odalv, your comment made me think of this quote:
Quote from: John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace
“By this means the government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.”

He was talking about Fiat inflation. - I think we are set for a revolution in that it is about 1 in 100,000 people cant detect the theft now.

today: It is SC allow inflation in SC tokens (currency) while backing it with and fixing the value of Bitcoin and by this means Blockstream and their future partners may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the Bitcoiners, and not one man in a million will detect the theft. (problem is there arrant that many Bitcoiners)

you just need Fiat money to make this happen, and not a lot either, fractions of that is pumped out in the past QE (more than I have but I am not at risk of a failing Fiat system.)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 06:03:44 PM
 #15454

...

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.

and that would be to ignore what Odalv has said all along.  he envisions billions.  there certainly will be a lot as they are costless to implement.  and why not if you can attract valuable BTC to scBTC while possibly securing MM?
Quote
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.

we would hope not.  except with lots of miners losing money at this point, if SC's were implemented tomorrow even with a questionable innovation, speculative miners could be expected to support a speculative SC.
Quote

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.
a sidecoin exacerbates the problem as i see it by introducing a block reward on the SC in addition to the tx fees paid.  as Bitcoin's mining reward dwindles, the inequity in payout becomes even more stark in favor of the SC.  we've been through this already, why ignore us?
Quote

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

i disagree that these can ever be the only benefits that Bitcoin might ever derive from technological advancements.  better security might be one.   niche uses not dependent on MM are another huge source.  all these have the potential to suck the life out of Bitcoin (decreased tx fees) especially when there exists this theoretical risk free put.
Quote

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

you're still ignoring that they could take over the MC especially if the scBTC start to climb in price and we see migration to the SC over time if the innovation appears valid and useful. you've never answered my Q about how and when will the core devs be willing to integrate a new innovation into the MC?  maybe the Blockstream core devs don't want that to happen out of conflict of interest?
 
Quote

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.

it is a risk in the sense that if successive innovative SC's are introduced, which is to be expected, then forcing all BTC hodlers to crack open cold wallets to migrate each time this happens would introduce all sorts of risk which i've already identified.

we should be innovating on the MC to preserve the sanctity of the BTC to blockchain inextricable linkage of value.  Bitcoin is hard.  but we need miners to constantly struggle pushing security to it's maximum via hashrate on the MC (they might not like it but that is what Bitcoin needs), we need investors to struggle timing the inevitable bubble ramps and crashes, we need ALL tx's to happen on MC to pay those miners as block rewards decrease, we need devs that are willing to compete in a fair and non conflicted manner to advance Bitcoin from a public service perspective, we need devs who can come to a consensus to develop truly significant innovations on the MC.  there is too much money involved to allow for-profit enterprise to take over the system.  the public confidence depends on a fair, balanced, unconflicted system as Bitcoin is the first and only attempt at establishing a worldwide, people based, sound money standard that is not in the clutches of men.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 06:06:13 PM
 #15455

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?

The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact.

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

you need to dig way deeper than that rocks.  have you been following all the comments since the paper release here in this thread?  read them all and see if you come to the same conclusion.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 06:11:12 PM
 #15456

isnt there already "decentralized exchanges" as in OTC channels?
I cant wrap my mind as to how such decentralized exchange would be implemented otherwise.
People keep invoking such concept as the holy grail but i find it hard to imagine how it should work. what am i missing Huh

ps: SCs.. yuck.

a "decentralized exchanges" can not touch you BTC, you have a deposit account with them, but they cant move your BTC. - no more Goxing - on the downside an exchange can't do the same with your Fiat.

here is an intro as to the proper way to do it without screwing with the protocol.
http://youtu.be/teNzIFu5L70?t=1m

why change something - introduce SC if the proposed benefits are already here: SC come with another side benefit, (feature) and that is the value in BTC transfers to the Side Chain while your bitcoin private keys stay safe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtJcUM5-TeA

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

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 06:30:44 PM
 #15457

Quote
In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

that's not but what is: is failing to understanding that a feature that is more valuable will have an impact.

what if that value is laundering stolen coins? the arb opportunity will be 0ver 10% and there are about 1,000,000 stolen BTC out there.

what if some nation state: whats to use blockchain technology, and invests a failing fiat system or there gold reserves in a SC that is inflationary but comes with demurrage if saving in a private wallet and interest when held with a CB or some other feature that appeals to the 99% that is not Bitcoin. it is a great opportunity for Bitcoiners to arb initially until the arb gap is closed.  the goale here is to make Bitcoin attractive to Nation-State's note there isn't a Nation-State that should feel safe with bitcoin growing as it is.  

Quote from:  Austin Hill - farther of SC  http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/
it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 06:48:46 PM
 #15458

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

that's not but what is: is failing to understanding that a feature that is more valuable will have an impact.

what if that value is laundering stolen coins? the arb opportunity will be 0ver 10% and there are about 1,000,000 stolen BTC out there.

what if some nation state: whats to use blockchain technology, and invests a failing fiat system or there gold reserves in a SC that is inflationary but comes with demurrage if saving in a private wallet and interest when held with a CB or some other feature that appeals to the 99% that is not Bitcoin. it is a great opportunity for Bitcoiners to arb initially until the arb gap is closed.  the goale here is to make Bitcoin attractive to Nation-State's note there isn't a Nation-State that should feel safe with bitcoin growing as it is. 

it is important to distinguish between bitcoin the asset and the blockchain as a programmable distributed trust infrastructure.  And we are interested in blockchain 2.0 and blockchain 2.0 using Bitcoin as a neutral transactional currency we believe is a great, offers great promise but I want to build a blockchain that could support a nation-state putting its national currency and phasing out paper dollars.



you got your quote mixed up.  that was rocks who said that.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 07:06:37 PM
 #15459


SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2014, 07:10:18 PM
 #15460

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?

The way I read brg444's comments are; Since SC's only add functionality to the BTC main chain, that functionality can only be beneficial to the main chain and increase the main chain's value. If a SC was created who's functionality was not useful and does not add value, then that SC does nothing for the main chain but also does not have a negative effect. It just simply has no impact.

In that sense SC's can only add value to the main chain. If their features are useful then they add value, if they are not then they have no impact.

You can agree or disagree with that, but it's not economically naive.

It is economically naive to fail to consider that a feature that adds value in one economic condition, may subtract it in another, and that movement of money may follow this with a lag, sometimes a very significant lag due to practical constraints.
Further naivete would be in imaging that this is not happening all the time, and that this effect is commonly exploited.  "Economists" here are contemplating only static ideal cases, and implementing regulatory changes in spite of these concerns.  Changing the code is changing what ultimately regulates Bitcoin.

With this particular change, it is not so easy to undo it if it turns out to be a mistake.  Many Bitcoin may be destroyed.  People will make mistakes of trust.

There are many new risks with SC.  Lets address them rather than pretend that they don't exist.

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 ... 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!