Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 01:19:47 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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] 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807375 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 09:00:32 PM
 #15681

I used the word "value" intentionally, rather than the word "price" to be meaning both 1) and 2) inclusively.
Price, Utility, Efficacy...  "virtue"

Thanks I agree with you're statement btw. (Maybe I'm conflicted on the value thing)

I guess in my mind what gives Bitcoin it's value is the incentive structure, I'm concerned that if there is an existential risk to those incentives then it's a threat to the value that incentive structure creates.

But that's the limit of my understanding maybe we are due to learn and repeat a fiew mistakes this time around.


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1481332787
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332787

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332787
Reply with quote  #2

1481332787
Report to moderator
1481332787
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332787

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332787
Reply with quote  #2

1481332787
Report to moderator
1481332787
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332787

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332787
Reply with quote  #2

1481332787
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481332787
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332787

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332787
Reply with quote  #2

1481332787
Report to moderator
1481332787
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332787

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332787
Reply with quote  #2

1481332787
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 09:01:23 PM
 #15682

oil?  who the hell needs oil?



Lots of people needs to sell, anyway. The times of production cost of 4 dollars are gone. Now you have to also calculate with social cost, the cost to keep folks just happy enough not to topple the masters. To stem the arab spring flood. Easily 80 dollars. They have to continue selling, even on lower prices. Turbulence ahead.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 09:24:46 PM
 #15683

If SC suck as much as SC-discussions then we've got nothing to fear from them.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 11:39:54 PM
 #15684

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.

I think it is not possible.
Global MM SC + faster tx times => is not viable SC => it cost much more resources (disk space) than Bitcoin
but it is possible to use a lot of LOCAL SC (with small market cap. distributed over globe) for fast local transaction  cafe, dinner ...
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 11:59:11 PM
 #15685

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 12:03:52 AM
 #15686

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.


it's not the same.  you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain.  yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.

when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 12:26:51 AM
 #15687

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.


it's not the same.  you are separating the currency units from its original secure blockchain.  

Bitstamp, Houbi, OkCoin, BTC-E exist. Those are 2-way-peg SCs. They use CENTRAL entity controlled 2wp.
If some exchange switch into Federated peg or will use oracles then we will have safer exchanges.

I'm not separating nothing. Traders send bitcoin to exchange (to sidechain controled by central entity).


Quote
yes, an exchange keeps its own internal order book and tracks trades but the actual aggregate BTC still sit securely on the exchanges private keys.

when an exchange gets hacked its those private keys that get stolen, not the order book.

Using different 2wp hacking can be harder  b/c BTC are not stored in exchange wallet (bitcoin can be locked in MC)
This does not require any change to bitcoin protocol.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 12:54:01 AM
 #15688

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 12:57:39 AM
 #15689

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?
It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 01:40:35 AM
 #15690

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?
It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .

shhh, you are spoiling it.

oblivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:07:21 AM
 #15691

oil?  who the hell needs oil?


Jesus thats scary. it reminds me of other graph unfortunately..

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:25:08 AM
 #15692

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?

I wouldn't put it past some of these guys.

In trying to imagine a way to solve some of the moving stake issues I dreampt up and idea which would provide sidechains without sidechains by shuffling secret keys.  Sort of like stealth addresses in spirit but amplified exponentially.  In essence it would be a big till with all kinds of different fractional chunks of BTC shuffling around to those who need 'change'.  Such a thing could potentially really fuck up the day of those trying to track value flows in part because there is no correlation between the sender and receiver other then they happen to be members of the same system.

Obviously the secret keys would be locked in various ways and if the lock is broken the backing vanishes (back into pure Bitcoinland.)


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:32:43 AM
 #15693

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.

Except that for the SC to become the mainchain it requires the same consensus that a hard fork to the original BTC mainchain would so "ossification" is not an eligible argument IMO


"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: 1330



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:08:46 AM
 #15694

Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin.
Side Chains present new opportunities that may lead to vastly more adoption, reducing risks to Bitcoin, improving its value, and making it more secure.
Both of the above statements are true.
If you think only one of them is true, you don't understand Side Chains.

> "Side Chains present new existential risks to Bitcoin that may result in the end of Bitcoin."
How can you prove this ?

 - SC is not new. We have a lot of SC. (Exchanges, WebWallets, payment processors, OT, ...)
 - Blockstream whitepaper only gave them names  2wp, SPV proof, blockchain concept ... and brings new ideas how to use them.


I think the risk is proven in theory, you may not have understood it, but that doesn't negate it.

The ideas aren't new either, the only new tech Blockstream have introduced is a proposal for a protocol change that will allow BTC the asset to be separated from the value stored on the blockchain.

If you feel comfortable with the existing solutions why introduce new risks?

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

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:12:57 AM
 #15695

Hypothetical: I have invented a two-way peg that requires no changes to the existing Bitcoin protocol. I.e. SC are now possible without any new code being run by the network.

What are you going to do about? Send in a PR to change the protocol to block hypothetical economic "attacks"?
It is not "Hypothetical" it is reality .
No one is contesting this, this is innovation.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:23:35 AM
 #15696

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.

Except that for the SC to become the mainchain it requires the same consensus that a hard fork to the original BTC mainchain would so "ossification" is not an eligible argument IMO



except that the dynamics are different.  the hard fork we had with 0.8.1 was abrupt and caused a 20 block disparity right after it was introduced.

SC's otoh may encourage a slow creep as migration moves to the SC over years time. 

brg444, do you know if scBTC can take advantage of a faster tx time when the SC simultaneously creates a sidecoin?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:33:09 AM
 #15697

except that the dynamics are different.  the hard fork we had with 0.8.1 was abrupt and caused a 20 block disparity right after it was introduced.

SC's otoh may encourage a slow creep as migration moves to the SC over years time. 

brg444, do you know if scBTC can take advantage of a faster tx time when the SC simultaneously creates a sidecoin?

Possible I guess, but as stated yesterday I don't see the use case or why someone would want to put their coins on such a chain

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:41:48 AM
 #15698

except that the dynamics are different.  the hard fork we had with 0.8.1 was abrupt and caused a 20 block disparity right after it was introduced.

SC's otoh may encourage a slow creep as migration moves to the SC over years time. 

brg444, do you know if scBTC can take advantage of a faster tx time when the SC simultaneously creates a sidecoin?

Possible I guess, but as stated yesterday I don't see the use case or why someone would want to put their coins on such a chain

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not? 

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin. 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:52:57 AM
 #15699

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not? 

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin. 

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 04:00:22 AM
 #15700

if the scBTC can take advantage of faster tx times, why not? 

miners would like it too as they'd get all those sources of income, tx fees from scBTC and sidecoin, as well as block rewards of sidecoin. 

Because users have no interest for a sidechain with an additional sidecoin. Users will go for the more safe, most risk-averse chain which is the scBTC 1:1 peg model

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 ... 1560 »
  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!