Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 02:46:35 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 ... 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] 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2008941 times)
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:16:30 PM
 #15601


MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.
I'm not seeing that.
Quote
4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain

edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper.

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 04:28:51 PM
 #15602

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:31:35 PM
 #15603

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:34:32 PM
 #15604

We can't have democracy without choice.  I have one legit chain to point my hardware at.  I would love to continue to mine Bitcoin, but also be given the choice to support other chains at the same time if they can work synergistically with Bitcoin.  There is a higher bar for sidechains because it is so very obvious that it is a waste of time if it doesn't gain at least a solid niche use.  As a miner, I would want to thoroughly vet a sidechain before I would give up known Bitcoin rewards for transaction-fee only sidechain blocks.  If merge mining were used, we would be pushing the 1 MB limit before long as every chain would want their block hashes on the bitcoin blockchain, so I'm not terribly keen to support that route unless perhaps after a sidechain has proven itself by mining fee-only for some time.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:34:42 PM
 #15605

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.

QC?

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:37:58 PM
 #15606

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

How do sidechains differ from treechains?

While we noticed many in the community comparing treechains with sidechains as potential competition, the two ideas are largely unrelated.
While treechains is a proposal to further the scaling of blockchain-based systems, the two-way peg is a mechanism for moving assets across
blockchains without a trusted party
, furthering the extensibility of the entire system.

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

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:44:55 PM
 #15607

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

Why do you think that exchanging BTC for pegged, reversible, and insured scBTC does not improve Bitcoin scalability. You are exchanging trust for convenience. Unless you write all your own Bitcoin code, then you are already willing to trust someone else to manage your bitcoins. In this case, the SCs are apps that manage bitcoin transactions more conveniently for the cost of a little trust. If they lose your trust, you can always get some of your bitcoins back.

The concept of pegged side chains is similar to lite clients. If you no longer trust them, you can sweep your keys to a full client.

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

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:46:01 PM
 #15608

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.

QC?

quantum computer :-)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 04:46:51 PM
 #15609

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
If side chains are proposed as a solution for Bitcoin scalability, then they must be actual Bitcoin transactions.

If side chains aren't actual Bitcoin transactions, then they are not a solution to the problem of enabling the network to perform more Bitcoin transactions.

In this case, they are solving some other problem entirely.

How do sidechains differ from treechains?

While we noticed many in the community comparing treechains with sidechains as potential competition, the two ideas are largely unrelated.
While treechains is a proposal to further the scaling of blockchain-based systems, the two-way peg is a mechanism for moving assets across
blockchains without a trusted party
, furthering the extensibility of the entire system.

I was referring to this claim by cbeast, not any claims by the Blockstream team:

what's your answer again to the argument that all these billions of SC's are stealing tx fees away from Bitcoin miners?
Are you concerned about revenue or block size? Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
 #15610

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Except that we know from experience that this is not true.  MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC.

Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better.

it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 05:01:06 PM
 #15611

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster.

QC?

quantum computer :-)
Thanks for disambiguating.
I was thinking QC="Quality Control" and was pretty baffled as to what that would entail.

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, 05:02:15 PM
 #15612

Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?
if that is the point, it won't work.

Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer.

If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement.

If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low.
The onus of SPV security is on the person risking their bitcoins. Bitcoin users don't care if the side chains succeed or fail.

i very much do care b/c for each failure and loss of scBTC, an owner has to take a loss.  the bigger these losses multiplied by thousands of SC's, the greater the set back in terms of public perception.  we don't need that.
Quote

Bitcoin users don't care if those bitcoins go back to transacting or are lost forever. If the sidechain security is poor then the market will choose a better side chain. Bitcon doesn't need to see what is going on in the side chain, it only needs to see if it is broadcasting bitcoin transactions, which it should only do rarely.

it's your responsibility to secure your own house.  that's why  you don't leave your front door wide open all the time.
Quote
I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:03:52 PM
 #15613

scenario:  SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC

is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.
How about answering the question?

What about telling me what  innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin.  
Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? )

faster tx times.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:05:48 PM
 #15614

Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains?
if that is the point, it won't work.

Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer.

If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement.

If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low.
The onus of SPV security is on the person risking their bitcoins. Bitcoin users don't care if the side chains succeed or fail.

i very much do b/c for each failure and loss of scBTC, an owner has to take a loss.  the bigger these losses multiplied by thousands of SC's, the greater the setup in terms of public perception.  we don't need that.
Quote

Bitcoin users don't care if those bitcoins go back to transacting or are lost forever. If the sidechain security is poor then the market will choose a better side chain. Bitcon doesn't need to see what is going on in the side chain, it only needs to see if it is broadcasting bitcoin transactions, which it should only do rarely.

it's your responsibility to secure your own house.  that's why  you don't leave your front door wide open all the time.


But it is also why you only put your belongings in a house that you've checked is secure.

Quote
Quote
I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2014, 05:07:08 PM
 #15615

I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage.
I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain.  And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC.

Except that we know from experience that this is not true.  MC ossifies or has unbreakable social contracts, so better doesn't get implemented into MC.

Instead what SC offers is that MC may 95% migrate to it and leave behind those that don't agree that the change is better.

it would've been alot easier to trust if Blockstream the for profit wasn't involved in MC core dev.

This.
As part of MC core dev, there is some control over the ossification.

FWIW, I think these are good guys and I like/trust them just fine.
Anyone can be subjected to coercive forces though.  Not just greed coercion by gaining vast wealth, but gun to the head of your child or whatever can change one's mind about things.  This is why conflicts of interest at centralization points are especially troubling.  If you are in that position yourself, you may be putting those you care about at risk.  

That they would knowingly accept such conflicts of interest, leads me to question their wisdom.  
They may come to their senses yet.

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, 05:10:23 PM
 #15616


MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.
I'm not seeing that.
Quote
4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain

edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper.

p 13

As miners provide work for more blockchains, more resources are needed to track and validate
them all. Miners that provide work for a subset of blockchains are compensated less than those
which provide work for every possible blockchain. Smaller-scale miners may be unable to afford
350
the full costs to mine every blockchain, and could thus be put at a disadvantage compared to larger,
established miners who are able to claim greater compensation from a larger set of blockchains.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:21:50 PM
 #15617

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).
Yes, they are real SC transactions on the SC blockchain (or whatever security measure they use), but Bitcoin users don't see them on the bitcoin blockchain.

The White Paper warns against using MM. In fact, scrypt ASIC miners might be tapped for SC security instead of SHA miners. Again your concerns seem to be about transaction revenue for Bitcoin miners. They can always reduce their fees and make the revenue up in volume by competing with the SCs. But then they have a bloated blockchain. Don't you think that SCs won't have the same problem? They may end up with bloated SC block chains and won't even have the benefit of a block subsidy.

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:25:19 PM
 #15618

I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.

huh?  there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's.  my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM).
Yes, they are real SC transactions on the SC blockchain (or whatever security measure they use), but Bitcoin users don't see them on the bitcoin blockchain.

The White Paper warns against using MM. In fact, scrypt ASIC miners might be tapped for SC security instead of SHA miners. Again your concerns seem to be about transaction revenue for Bitcoin miners.


yes
Quote
They can always reduce their fees and make the revenue up in volume by competing with the SCs.

they're already losing money in some situations (small miners).  what room do they have to reduce fees further?
Quote

But then they have a bloated blockchain. Don't you think that SCs won't have the same problem? They may end up with bloated SC block chains and won't even have the benefit of a block subsidy.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:26:24 PM
 #15619


MM does not save resources. It forces miners to keep track of more data and this leads to centralization by shutting out smaller miners.
I'm not seeing that.
Quote
4. Sidechains should be firewalled: a bug in one sidechain enabling creation (or theft) of assets
in that chain should not result in creation or theft of assets on any other chain

edit: OK I found it. Yeah MM bad according to the white paper.

p 13

As miners provide work for more blockchains, more resources are needed to track and validate
them all. Miners that provide work for a subset of blockchains are compensated less than those
which provide work for every possible blockchain. Smaller-scale miners may be unable to afford
350
the full costs to mine every blockchain, and could thus be put at a disadvantage compared to larger,
established miners who are able to claim greater compensation from a larger set of blockchains.

I'm not concerned about small scale miners. This seems to be a bias based on business concerns rather than the technology. The incentive is available for those with that can aggregate the resources. Welcome to the big league. There are no rules of fair play, only math.

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

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 04, 2014, 05:33:21 PM
 #15620

Speaking of big leagues. I can't wait to hear the complaining from KNC when TI, Motorola, or Sony etc. decide to get into the Bitcoin mining biz.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 ... 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!