Bitcoin Forum
August 24, 2017, 07:09:47 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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] 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1958008 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176



View Profile
November 03, 2014, 11:18:30 PM
 #15501

@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.
1503558587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503558587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503558587
Reply with quote  #2

1503558587
Report to moderator
1503558587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503558587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503558587
Reply with quote  #2

1503558587
Report to moderator
1503558587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503558587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503558587
Reply with quote  #2

1503558587
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503558587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503558587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503558587
Reply with quote  #2

1503558587
Report to moderator
1503558587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503558587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503558587
Reply with quote  #2

1503558587
Report to moderator
1503558587
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503558587

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503558587
Reply with quote  #2

1503558587
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 11:20:12 PM
 #15502

...
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: 2240


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 11:54:41 PM
 #15503

...
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
 #15504

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
 #15505

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.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:12:55 AM
 #15506

so they moved this to pg 5:

The core observation is that
“Bitcoin” the blockchain is conceptually independent from “bitcoin” the asset: if we had technology
to support the movement of assets between blockchains, new systems could be developed which
users could adopt by simply reusing the existing bitcoin currency


wrong
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:17:10 AM
 #15507

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?

Sounds like he is saying, in effect, 'a reserve currency'.  That is exactly what BTC would be in a solution involving more than one sidechain.

Maybe that's why the author(s) deemed batch mode (periodic blocks forming a chain) to be a satisfactory design vs. a streaming or token design more appropriate for exchange duty.

I do wonder if Satoshi anticipated sidechains from the get-go.  Very possibly since they are quite logical and they occurred to dumb-ass me fairly quickly after putting my mind to the problem of how to make the thing scale.  Indeed, bitcoin seems almost custom made to serve as a reserve currency foundation.  If he did I would not be surprised at all if he declined to mention them given how they blow the mind of some of you mouth-breathing simpletons out there.

Oh! --->>>
Quote
pg 5:  

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

That almost seals it for me.  Yup.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:23:58 AM
 #15508

pg 7

If, in the medium term, there
were wide agreement that the new system was an improvement, it may end up seeing significantly
more use than Bitcoin. As there are no changes to parent chain consensus rules, everyone can switch
in their own time without any of the risks associated with consensus failure.


they never address the problem of mining tx fee fragmentation as a result of increasing usage of the SC.  how will Bitcoin miners ever make make money when SC's are attracting all the tx's?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:28:41 AM
 #15509

Sounds like he is saying, in effect, 'a reserve currency'.  That is exactly what BTC would be in a solution involving more than one sidechain.


tv, how can Bitcoin act as a reserve currency in the presence of multiple SC's that are sucking BTC and miners away from the MC thus decreasing it's security model and therefore it's value?  think about 2140 when the block reward has gone to 0 and Bitcoin miners are supposed to rely on tx fees exclusively but they are being outcompeted by a SC that is processing all their tx's b/c everyone has migrated over to it b/c of an innovation?

edit:  i know some will say that the MC will just incorporate the innovation.  maybe, maybe not.  the whitepaper says everyone can/should move over.  also, if consensus is so hard to get now, what changes then?  and what about the conflict of interest that the Blockstream devs might use to block the innovation being added to MC b/c they have an interest in SC's being successful?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 01:30:19 AM
 #15510

Personally I am considerably less worried about the effect of sidechains on Bitcoin, than I am about their effect on Bitcoiners.

However, I do not appreciate wanton ignoring of risks and claiming "don't worry it will be fine"
Whenever I hear that it is a good reason to hold my wallet tight and walk the other direction.

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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:32:24 AM
 #15511

I think Satosi envisioned blockchain to blockchain transactions for sure, not sure he flushed out pegging them.

I believe he saw the decentralized exchanges using OpenTransaction trust free servers and backing new featured tokens with smart contracts.

Who knows I'm sure he's hands off.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:34:29 AM
 #15512


how will Bitcoin miners ever make make money when SC's are attracting all the tx's?

Nobody ever imagined that SC's would "attract all the tx's".  Just the opposite else the two-way peg is meaningless.

In my mind there is significant concern that 500k transactions per day would satisfy even the peg transactions (given that I would like to see it be realistic for a reasonable swath of individual-class users store value on the primary chain.)  That is why I'm not opposed to some expansion of the transaction rate, but I am fiercely protective of keeping Bitcoin at a size that it can be both maintained by smaller players AND defended in the case of a broad attack by core global internet infrastructure providers.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:38:19 AM
 #15513


how will Bitcoin miners ever make make money when SC's are attracting all the tx's?

Nobody ever imagined that SC's would "attract all the tx's".  Just the opposite else the two-way peg is meaningless.




why wouldn't a SC with an innovation like faster tx times attract all the tx's?  and why wouldn't the scBTC stay scBTC with the perceived risk free put (2wp)?  and if i'm right, they will be rewarded by staying on the SC b/c the price of scBTC on that SC will start to rise faster in fiat terms than BTC itself as the SC becomes more and more successful.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 01:38:45 AM
 #15514

Sounds like he is saying, in effect, 'a reserve currency'.  That is exactly what BTC would be in a solution involving more than one sidechain.


tv, how can Bitcoin act as a reserve currency in the presence of multiple SC's that are sucking BTC and miners away from the MC thus decreasing it's security model and therefore it's value?  think about 2140 when the block reward has gone to 0 and Bitcoin miners are supposed to rely on tx fees exclusively but they are being outcompeted by a SC that is processing all their tx's b/c everyone has migrated over to it b/c of an innovation?

This will happen a lot sooner if we get the level of transactions that Gavin is anticipating.
Currently TX fees are 1/300th of the total reward.
If we get 40x the transactions in a decade, the fees with be anywhere from equivalent to as low as 1/3 the reward (the coinbase block reward will go down twice - maybe thrice by then so 1/4 or 1/8).
This would be about 80 TX per second.
Visa does about 2000/second on average today.

However if we get accompanying price appreciation for BTC along with such adoption, we may likely have fee reduction by an order of magnitude or two, which could put us back to only fees = 1/100th the block reward.

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:47:06 AM
 #15515

@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.

that is how i understand it.  but as far as you pumping the Federated server model, this is from the paper itself pg 7:

Although it is possible to use a simple trust-based solution involving fixed signers
(see Appendix A) to verify locking of coins, there are important reasons to avoid the introduction
of single points of failure:

Trusting individual signers does not only mean expecting them to behave honestly; they must
also never be compromised, never leak secret key material, never be coerced, and never stop
participating in the network.

Because digital assets are long-lived, any trust requirements must be as well. Experience has
shown that trust requirements are dangerous expectations even for timespans on the order of
months, let alone the generational timespans we expect financial systems to last.
180

Digital currencies were unable to gain traction until Bitcoin was able to eliminate single
points of failure, and the community is strongly averse to the introduction of such weaknesses.
Community mistrust is reinforced by financial events since 2007; public trust in the financial
system and other public institutions is likewise at historical lows.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 01:52:12 AM
 #15516


how will Bitcoin miners ever make make money when SC's are attracting all the tx's?

Nobody ever imagined that SC's would "attract all the tx's".  Just the opposite else the two-way peg is meaningless.


why wouldn't a SC with an innovation like faster tx times attract all the tx's?  and why wouldn't the scBTC stay scBTC with the perceived risk free put (2wp)?  and if i'm right, they will be rewarded by staying on the SC b/c the price of scBTC on that SC will start to rise faster in fiat terms as the SC becomes more and more successful.

People keep talking about a peg.
As if there were such a thing.


One of these days there will be an SC with some very useful feature, but the devs used compromised cryptographic primitives, and can factor out SC private keys and run off with all the BTC that moved into that chain.
If this is done as a long enough con, it could become an existential risk to bitcoin, yes?  (both the SC and Bitcoin could be essentially destroyed).

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:58:47 AM
 #15517

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.

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.)

This makes so little sense I don't know where to begin.

A sidechain taking over Bitcoin that has less desirable qualities than Bitcoin provides? I... I just can't

SC does not allow inflation. Altcoins allow inflation. SC does not enable altcoin.

Why is it so hard for you people to understand this

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 01:59:50 AM
 #15518

People keep talking about a peg.
As if there were such a thing.


One of these days there will be an SC with some very useful feature, but the devs used compromised cryptographic primitives, and can factor out SC private keys and run off with all the BTC that moved into that chain.
If this is done as a long enough con, it could become an existential risk to bitcoin, yes?  (both the SC and Bitcoin could be essentially destroyed).

 Huh


Open source

 Huh

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

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 02:03:59 AM
 #15519


how will Bitcoin miners ever make make money when SC's are attracting all the tx's?

Nobody ever imagined that SC's would "attract all the tx's".  Just the opposite else the two-way peg is meaningless.


why wouldn't a SC with an innovation like faster tx times attract all the tx's?  and why wouldn't the scBTC stay scBTC with the perceived risk free put (2wp)?  and if i'm right, they will be rewarded by staying on the SC b/c the price of scBTC on that SC will start to rise faster in fiat terms as the SC becomes more and more successful.

People keep talking about a peg.
As if there were such a thing.


One of these days there will be an SC with some very useful feature, but the devs used compromised cryptographic primitives, and can factor out SC private keys and run off with all the BTC that moved into that chain.
If this is done as a long enough con, it could become an existential risk to bitcoin, yes?  (both the SC and Bitcoin could be essentially destroyed).

Call me paranoid but that's how I feel about wallet that generate my private keys.
Why would it be bad for Bitcoin? How would it be destroyed?

I can see how the BTC price would drop but wouldn't this be like other scams in the past? When people clue in it would be like a run on the bank SideChain?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 02:12:39 AM
 #15520


how will Bitcoin miners ever make make money when SC's are attracting all the tx's?

Nobody ever imagined that SC's would "attract all the tx's".  Just the opposite else the two-way peg is meaningless.


why wouldn't a SC with an innovation like faster tx times attract all the tx's?  and why wouldn't the scBTC stay scBTC with the perceived risk free put (2wp)?  and if i'm right, they will be rewarded by staying on the SC b/c the price of scBTC on that SC will start to rise faster in fiat terms as the SC becomes more and more successful.

People keep talking about a peg.
As if there were such a thing.


One of these days there will be an SC with some very useful feature, but the devs used compromised cryptographic primitives, and can factor out SC private keys and run off with all the BTC that moved into that chain.
If this is done as a long enough con, it could become an existential risk to bitcoin, yes?  (both the SC and Bitcoin could be essentially destroyed).

i've brought up a number of times that this SPV proof is unproven and untested no matter what you call it.  they can vet it all they want but no one knows it will work until it's been tested live under market conditions.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 ... 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!