Bitcoin Forum
June 29, 2017, 04:04:34 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 ... 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 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1923593 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 11:39:54 PM
 #15681

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 ...
1498709074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498709074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498709074
Reply with quote  #2

1498709074
Report to moderator
1498709074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498709074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498709074
Reply with quote  #2

1498709074
Report to moderator
1498709074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498709074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498709074
Reply with quote  #2

1498709074
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1498709074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498709074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498709074
Reply with quote  #2

1498709074
Report to moderator
1498709074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498709074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498709074
Reply with quote  #2

1498709074
Report to moderator
1498709074
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498709074

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498709074
Reply with quote  #2

1498709074
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148



View Profile
November 04, 2014, 11:59:11 PM
 #15682

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
 #15683

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: 1148



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 12:26:51 AM
 #15684

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: 2296



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 12:54:01 AM
 #15685

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: 1148



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 12:57:39 AM
 #15686

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: 2296



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 01:40:35 AM
 #15687

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: 630


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:07:21 AM
 #15688

oil?  who the hell needs oil?


Jesus thats scary. it reminds me of other graph unfortunately..
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2184


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:25:08 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"?

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
*****
Online Online

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:32:43 AM
 #15690

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: 1358



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:08:46 AM
 #15691

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: 1358



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:12:57 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"?
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
 #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



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
*****
Online Online

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:33:09 AM
 #15694

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
 #15695

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
*****
Online Online

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:52:57 AM
 #15696

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
 #15697

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 04:12:15 AM
 #15698

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.

Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice.

"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
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 06:15:28 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

but the SC would be MM.  just like Namecoin is today with 70% of the Bitcoin hashrate.

Only largely accepted and used sidechains will be mined because only those will have value. As I've stated many times, miners will not MM speculative coins or other obscure schemes that gain little traction, there's no incentive for them to do so.

A sidechain using both scBTC and issued assets (sidecoins) for whatever reason is simply inferior to the superior scBTC 1:1 chain. To serve monetary functions ex: faster transactions, the appSidechain or as I have called them, utility chain, is simply the more logic choice.

Agreed, a sidechain that is inflationary (by creating additional sidecoin issued assets) will not be functional because it breaks the store of value property. For such sidechains, the scBTC value in equivalent BTC will decrease over time making it so no one wants to hold the coin. And if no one holds the scBTC coins, the functionality of the sidechain is greatly reduced.

Let's take a zerocoin sidechain example. Suppose someone created an scZerocoin that enabled completely anonymous transactions and a method to safely mix coins. That is very useful functionality people are interested in. However this scZerocoin sidechain was designed to also mine sideZerocoins, which break the 1:1 transfer and cause scZerocoin assets to decrease in BTC value over time.

The problem is people are now incentivized to minimize the length of time they hold scZercoin's to as short of a time period as possible. i.e. convert BTC to scZerocoin, make anonymous transactions, then convert scZerocoin back into BTC as soon as possible. However this behavior also greatly reduces the zerocoin sidechain's functionality since: 1) there are very few other people to mix with at any given time since no one wants to hold the asset, 2) quickly withdrawing coins quickly reduces anonymity. The only way to correctly use this coin is to hold it for a reasonable period of time, but doing so causes a loss in BTC.

Such a sidechain will always lose to another implementation that guarantees a 1:1 peg by producing no sidecoin issued assets from MM. Here if someone else created scZerocoinV2 with 1:1 pegging, everyone would immediately switch and also potentially hold the scZerocoinV2 coins for lengthy periods of time.


What this means is any SC will need to be supported by transaction fees only, not speculative sidecoins generated. And as a result miners will only be interested in MM widely used SC that generate a reasonable amount of transaction revenue. Yes any SC can be MM, but there are costs on the server side and lightly used SC's with very few transaction fees won't be worth it.


Another important point is the sum total value of the Bitcoin mainchain and ALL sidechains combined will always equal 21M coins maximum. Even if there are billions of SCs created, the sum total value of all them is only the equivalent BTC that have been converted over and are available to convert back. If some SC's are inflationary, that action simply reduces the value of their own sidecoin assets, and the BTC equivalent value remains the same.

I haven't had time to go over the 100+ pages on the topic recently, but a lot of the concern seems to be that billions of SC's will be inflationary to the Bitcoin ecosystem and reduce the store of value aspect. I simply don't buy this because their cumulative BTC equivalent value will always remain the same and within the 21M cap.
keewee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1020



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 09:43:27 AM
 #15700

Not looking good...


1keewee2vRp63UWvPBynT55ZYw6SUCKDB
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 ... 1559 »
  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!