Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 06:20:08 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 ... 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] 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011151 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 08:57:23 PM
 #15481

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.

We create 2-way-peg  using YOU as central authority.
This mean:
 - you will generate pKeys where people will send bitcoin (to lock into cypherSC)
 - then you will create cypherCertificates (let's say they are harder to counterfeit than USD -> some value added)
 - if I'll send you BTC then you will give me your cypherCertificates
 - if I'll bring you cypherCertificates  then you will give me BTC

I'm expecting that you are not a scammer. I'm trusting you b/c it is proven by MATH/ALGO you will do what you promised. Converting BTC <-> cypherCertificate 1:1

Can you explain how bitcoin will lose value ?

b/c trusting me requires first that you know me.  your trust then is based on my past actions which you can assess.  only then do you allow me to set up a certificate server.  much like WOT where ppl sign off on each other credibility using their private keys but only after assessment and identity has been established.  you trust me to set up a server and install federated software that won't steal your keys.  these servers reside in centralized datacenters that you've paid with your IRL identity.  these servers won't ever be totally independent b/c they need to be maintained by someone with a real identity.

so increased centralization meaning less trust and lower value.

This is not exactly what you have to do (setup federated server). You only have to exchange  BTC : cypherCertificate(paper) if we met personally.

Can you prove you are not doing this ? (running cypherSC)
Can you prove there is not chinese exchange doing this ?

so if you do not stop your cypherSC then BTC will drop to $0

first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.
Creating a Bitcoin client that fully implements the network protocol is extremely difficult. Bitcoin-Qt is the only known safe implementation of a full node. Some other projects attempt to compete, but it is not recommended to use such software for anything serious. (Lightweight clients like Electrum and MultiBit are OK.)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511331608
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511331608

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511331608
Reply with quote  #2

1511331608
Report to moderator
1511331608
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511331608

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511331608
Reply with quote  #2

1511331608
Report to moderator
1511331608
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511331608

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511331608
Reply with quote  #2

1511331608
Report to moderator
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:04:57 PM
 #15482

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Bolded to nail the exact situation.

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

There is simply no sensible argument that the transaction growth rate should be permanently arrested and frozen. Transaction volumes should be allowed to grow at a rate near to that of improvements in computing technology (available to consumers).

Fortunately, this now seems to be the view of the majority, and also fortunate that consensus does not require unanimity, otherwise absolutely nothing would ever get done.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2014, 09:07:48 PM
 #15483

The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise.  They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings. 

The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest.  Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit.
So much FUD and misdirection in this post.

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

The "We need the 1MB limit because TOR" folks were fairly clear on their problems causes and ways to deal with it.
(Well, they didn't really address ways to deal with it, which IMHO would be network compression in the first instance)
http://keepbitcoinfree.org/
Peter Todd, et al.

Network compression would resolve many bandwidth issues for miners, though the Max BlockSize "transaction quota" would measure after decompression, so the limit can be higher without becoming problematic for bandwidth.  (Compression can also be assisting storage issues in the same way).

More discussion of it and other proposals here:
http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htm

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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:10:21 PM
 #15484


first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.

No one is asking you what you want to do -> you must prove what you did -> otherwise I do not believe you. You can do what you want as everyone. :-)

Who is "we" ? and how can I verify this claim.

I think you are running cypherSC. You are selling cypherCertificates for BTC and back. You did create cypherSC and this is reason why BTC drop in price  b/c cypherCertificates have no value.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:16:47 PM
 #15485

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Bolded to nail the exact situation.

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

There is simply no sensible argument that the transaction growth rate should be permanently arrested and frozen. Transaction volumes should be allowed to grow at a rate near to that of improvements in computing technology (available to consumers).

Fortunately, this now seems to be the view of the majority, and also fortunate that consensus does not require unanimity, otherwise absolutely nothing would ever get done.

i have to admit that i am in fact now leaning in this direction thanks to JR.

i think Gavin can get this done right if he can get the cooperation of the "Blockstream" devs.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:20:19 PM
 #15486

The fact is that it's the Bitcoin Foundation camp which wants to change the direction of Bitcoin toward a centralized monolith which is diametrically opposed to what a lot of us early adopters saw as Bitcoin's potential promise.  They are trying to gently turn the ship to get it into the vortex with panicking the lemmings. 

The Sidechains proposal, to the extent that it needs to even steer Bitcoin at all, is very modest.  Certainly not on par with the suggestion of hard-forking Bitcoin to make transaction rates and resource usage grow without limit.
So much FUD and misdirection in this post.

Bitcoin has grown in spite of the production quota on transaction processing because it hasn't reached the rate at which the quota becomes effective.

Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

Pffft!  WTF do you think Bitcoin is supposed to run on when the inflation (block reward) is used up?

There is nothing 'radical' and 'experimantal' about transaction fees.  They were part of the design.  You, my friend, are engaging in the FUD here.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Nobody in the "keep the blocks a 1 MB forever" camp has ever bothered to put out a clear description of what the problems with growth are, what are the precise causes, and all the possible ways to deal with them.

They just keep shouting their "centralization" fnord.

I just saw Gavin say in the same AMA summary that TOR was the answer for security (highly dubious to me, but anyway...) while he proposed increasing the block rate. He forgot to mention that the 1MB block size falls just under what seems to be supportable by TOR at the moment.

He forgot to mention that his proposal is exponential.  As I read Gavin's article here, I almost think he is saying "Remeber that CFR thing?  They got me.  Run for the hills fellow Bitcoiners"  It's that absurd to me.

Quote
Andresen posited that the 50% annual growth rate he suggested would enable the distributed network to facilitate as many as 400 million transactions per day if implemented now. After 12 years, the bitcoin network’s estimated transaction capacity would reach 56 billion transactions per day, according to Andresen’s initial calculations.

 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:22:23 PM
 #15487


first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.

No one is asking you what you want to do -> you must prove what you did -> otherwise I do not believe you. You can do what you want as everyone. :-)

Who is "we" ? and how can I verify this claim.

simply comb this forum and reddit and search for "decentralization".  you'll find your answer.  Roll Eyes
Quote
I think you are running cypherSC. You are selling cypherCertificates for BTC and back. You did create cypherSC and this is reason why BTC drop in price  b/c cypherCertificates have no value.

lol, wat?
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1666



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:22:53 PM
 #15488


 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'


Please spell it out for us laymen  Roll Eyes

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
.DeepOnion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★  .❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!.
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:31:06 PM
 #15489


 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'


Please spell it out for us laymen  Roll Eyes

his socialist old brain is affecting his thought patterns.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:36:57 PM
 #15490


first off, we do not want to set up central authorities.  period.  we want to keep the network as decentralized as possible.  that's a generally agreed upon principle of what we're doing here.

secondly, i have no idea what you're trying to say with cypherSC.

No one is asking you what you want to do -> you must prove what you did -> otherwise I do not believe you. You can do what you want as everyone. :-)

Who is "we" ? and how can I verify this claim.

simply comb this forum and reddit and search for "decentralization".  you'll find your answer.  Roll Eyes
Quote
I think you are running cypherSC. You are selling cypherCertificates for BTC and back. You did create cypherSC and this is reason why BTC drop in price  b/c cypherCertificates have no value.

lol, wat?

lol, I'm joking it is not you running worthless SC (cypherSC).
Did you realize you managed to found  how to destroy bitcoin ?  
1. Create SC with worthless paper coupons. (2-way-peg 1:1 ... coupons : BTC )
2. People will exchange BTC for worthless paper coupons.
3. Then they realize coupons are worthless and this will drive price of BTC to $0
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:40:31 PM
 #15491

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.

We create 2-way-peg  using YOU as central authority.
This mean:
 - you will generate pKeys where people will send bitcoin (to lock into cypherSC)
 - then you will create cypherCertificates (let's say they are harder to counterfeit than USD -> some value added)
 - if I'll send you BTC then you will give me your cypherCertificates
 - if I'll bring you cypherCertificates  then you will give me BTC

I'm expecting that you are not a scammer. I'm trusting you b/c it is proven by MATH/ALGO you will do what you promised. Converting BTC <-> cypherCertificate 1:1

Can you explain how bitcoin will lose value ?
I think we should frame this more appropriately as SC need to prove themselves not the other way around.
first you need to define: How is Bitcoin's value derived, what makes it valuable?

I think value in your analogy above needs a single definition.

lets say I exchange 1BTC for 1 Certificate lets make it a 1:1 peg

the stock certificate, if it becomes more valuable can be thought of as 1.05BTC in value, (it is possible that the Stock can have a market cap that is greater than Bitcoin, and will keep growing)  
Can you explain how Bitcoins gains in value (as you  have defined value above), given i can only exchange at the 1:1 peg.

How is the value of bitcoin, as it is today, enriched? (knowing the price will be set by some other market force that will absorb all the bitcoins)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:43:44 PM
 #15492


 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'


Please spell it out for us laymen  Roll Eyes

It's simple math.(*)  7 Tr/sec * 60 sec/min * 60 min/hr * 25 hr/day = 604,800 Tr/day  Not sure where Gavin pulled the 400x10^6 Tr/day 'if implemented now' figure from.  I guess maybe he's planning to (try to) get infrastructure monopolization started with a bang.


(*)  "Ain't no such thing as simple math!" he exclaimed as reeled off a few extra yard of bungee cord for his jump just to be on the safe side.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 09:55:16 PM
 #15493

...
I think you are running cypherSC. You are selling cypherCertificates for BTC and back. You did create cypherSC and this is reason why BTC drop in price  b/c cypherCertificates have no value.

The guy's endless army of newsletter subscribers will indeed be the death knell for Bitcoin.  Just the anticipation of it is tanking Bitcoin as we can see.  Oh well.  Bitcoin RIP.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 10:21:51 PM
 #15494


Pretty much spot on.

It's easy to get demoralized at the ignorance (or pseudo-ignorance) and lack of analytical abilities of Bitcoin enthusiasts if all one looks at is this forum and more specifically, one mostly looks at the threads which one has commented on.  Ask my how I know.


NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2014, 10:47:19 PM
 #15495


 - 12 years is about 2x the current age of Bitcoin.

 - 56,000,000,000 transactions is about 90,000x the current 600,000 TPD.

You can judge for yourself how much technology has advances between 2009 and 2015 and extrapolate that out then decide how, given the struggles Bitcoin has had meeting it's current 7TPS, it's going to swallow 650,000TPS.  But don't worry...it's just 'initial calculations.'


Please spell it out for us laymen  Roll Eyes

I'm not a fan of building in extrapolating to protocol definitions.


Even if they aren't exponential.

I'm debating this with Gavin privately, but there is an ELI5 of it here:
http://www.bizforum.org/Journal/www_journalJVP018.htm

Gavin agrees with me that there is no way to know today what the future of technology will be.
He offers what is essentially his best guess.

Where we disagree is whether the block sizes of the future will be useful in determining what the Max Block Size should be. (I say yes, he remains sceptical)

Using a flexible limit that is to some extent dependent on actual future block sizes has benefits such as:
1) It reduces (but does not eliminate) the role of a future arbitrator (a point of centralization) needing to decide when the variable is wrong and what it should be instead..
2) Brings us closer to the Milton Freidman ideal of a mechanistic system.
3) Discourages bandwidth attacks.
4) Having a flexible lower bound to which the protocol adheres, may allow for a more accommodating higher bound to manage for growth.  Since there is a mitigation for bursting issues, the upper bound may be higher as it isn't a default value but an additional safeguard.
5) Potential for encouraging active full nodes (another aspect of scalability).

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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 11:18:30 PM
 #15496

@cypherdoc - SC is not simple to understand

transacting in SC can be separated in 3 steps
1. entering SC
2. using SC
3. exiting SC

steps #1 and #3 => entering and exiting is 2-way-peg
a) 2-way-peg can be done by
 - trusted entity (human or server will convert between MC and SC) => it can be you (cypherSC)
 - Federated peg (N humans or oracles will create transactions on MC and SC -> locking and unlocking BTC and scBTC)
 - Co-signed (N humans or oracles ) and SPV proof from SC will be required to convert between MC and SC
 - bitcoin (bitcoin protocol wlll exchange  BTC <-> scBTC)
 - ... and many more
 
b) Then there is step #2 "using SC". This is separated from creating 2wp.
Using SC will require mining. This can be done by
 - MM merge mining
 - trusted entity (server will confirm blocks)
 - using Federated miners (those can by differnet from those who created Federated peg)
 - Oracle/s
 - bitcoin timestamping
 - SNARK
 - ... and many more

c) Block in SC can be new blockchain concept (aka, 'faster transactions', 'different monetary policy', 'better privacy', 'more extensive scripting', 'contracts', 'different cryptography', 'different mining models' and so on).


edit:
2wp, mining, blockchain concept are orthogonal. They create new 3-dimensional world.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 11:20:12 PM
 #15497

...
Allowing that artificial quota to limit the transaction rate is the radical experiment, taking us into uncharted economic territory.

There are no good economic arguments for magic constants that ration the transaction rate, just handwaving about "centralization".

Bolded to nail the exact situation.
...

Echo chamber in action.

In fact the 'radical experiment into uncharted economic territory' happens to be what Satoshi coded in.  Probably for better reasons than just a quick-n-dirty hack against abuse, but we may never know.  One would think that if that is what he was thinking he would have seen fit to put his thoughts in the commit comments.  Surely he was a smart enough guy to realize that this was going to become a bone of contention at some point...if Bitcoin took off at all anyway.

As for 'handwaving about centralization', I think I've amply demonstrated that even the likes of Google would have some troubles at Gavin's predicted transaction rates of half-a-million per second.  Long before that they would be shit-canning the blockchain nonsense and making Bitcoin a real-time system which would be moderately easy to do since they'de have to coordinate with at most a small handful of counterparts by that time.

It is true that private keys would remain private and the several infrastructure operates would never void them outright since it would destroy the last remnants of the system, but they certainly could and would require hodlers to verify to the levels required of a Bitcoin Licensee.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 11:54:41 PM
 #15498

...
i think Gavin can get this done right if he can get the cooperation of the "Blockstream" devs.

I'd go for anything up to a 10x static and one-time increase (which requires about 5 seconds with the commiter's favorite text editor) as long as I heard a well put together argument from the credible devs (who almost all just happen to be associated with Blockstream.)

Anything which fails the above criteria will cause me to consider blocksize shenanigans to be an attack and the fork upon which they occur to be hostile to Bitcoin.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:01:04 AM
 #15499

pg 4 whitepaper:

For this reason, Bitcoin’s objective is relatively simple: it is a blockchain supporting the
transfer of a single native digital asset, which is not redeemable for anything else.


so if a chunk of the native digital assets are allowed to migrate to SC's, where will the tx fees come from to pay miners long term after block rewards diminish to zero?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:07:17 AM
 #15500

pg 5: 

The fact that functionality must be broadly acceptable to gain adoption limits participants’
personal freedom and autonomy over their own coins.


this is inflammatory as far as i'm concerned.  if it bothers you, sell them and don't participate.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 ... 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!