Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 10:47:11 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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] 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804535 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:18:04 PM
 #15721

Odalv. Out  of  curiosity, what's your relative positions of altcoins to
bitcoins? Do you own many bitcoins?

I only own BTC. I do not have any ShitCoins and I do not plan to hold any.
SC is not ShitCoin. Sidechain is technology how to build services on top of bitcoin protocol.

network {TCP/IP, Novel, ... }
services {mail, http, ftp, dns, ...}

network=MC {Bitcoin, Litecoin, ...}
services=SC {ExchangeSC{MergerSC}, FastWalletSC, MixerSC, ...}

I want to scale Bitcoin to the level -> Bitcoin is used everywhere.
 - keep what bitcoin is (store of value, and value highway -> you can transfer any amount of value thru bitcon-blockchain)
 - OTOH I understand how to add new functionality into it. (better security, privacy, transaction speed, small block-chain - I WANT to keep my copy of main-blockchain where I store my value)


Edit:
Federated peg is good enough for me.
I was only trying to explain you what SC is.
1480934831
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934831

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934831
Reply with quote  #2

1480934831
Report to moderator
1480934831
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480934831

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480934831
Reply with quote  #2

1480934831
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:32:02 PM
 #15722

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

"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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:35:58 PM
 #15723


Yes  but maybe more than counterbalanced by sidecoin appreciation.

except no one is using the sidecoin

"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, 02:40:52 PM
 #15724

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:41:41 PM
 #15725

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

"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, 02:44:52 PM
 #15726

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster  tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well. 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:50:06 PM
 #15727

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster  tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well. 

 Huh

where do you get the idea that there is any sidecoin created. that is precisely my point. yes the SC will be used. NO there will not be any sidecoin subsidy. there is no reason or need for one.

"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, 02:54:27 PM
 #15728

That makes no sense.

Miners have nothing to lose by mining the sidecoin in this scenario as it's its own asset  independent from scBTC and not inflationary to it as rocks is trying to imply.. It's just extra money in a different form which they will gladly take.

man you are stubborn....

miners have no incentive mining the sidecoin because it will not be used. there will be no value in it.

exactly for the same reason they don't mine most of the altcoins right now. no reason to bother.

a sidecoin booted on top of a sidechain is an inferior chain to its equivalent 1:1 scBTC peg. that's all it comes down to

You haven't explained why no one would use the Sc. It has a faster tx time. 

scBTC also has the faster tx time. it doesn't need sidecoin to do that

That's precisely my point. ScBTC has faster  tx time. Therefore SC will be used and even
more so because miners can earn sidecoin as well. 

 Huh

where do you get the idea that there is any sidecoin created. that is precisely my point. yes the SC will be used. NO there will not be any sidecoin subsidy. there is no reason or need for one.

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 02:58:55 PM
 #15729

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain. Users & miners have no use for the sidecoin as the scBTC is safer, more risk-averse (it has the "risk-free" put as you put it)

"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, 03:03:39 PM
 #15730

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progress.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoin.  
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
 #15731

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 Roll Eyes

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

"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, 03:14:11 PM
 #15732

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 Roll Eyes

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:17:57 PM
 #15733

Goldbugs!  take joy in the fact that i weep in my sleep; everynight now since covering  Sad Cheesy  (not really)



brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:18:26 PM
 #15734

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

!!!

yes it is possible.

but address this question : is this desirable for the user? why would I use a sidechain that issues sidecoin if I can use a sidechain with the exact same feature that works only with the 1:1 peg. who would use the "sidecoin" when he has the option of the risk free put of the scBTC


"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:23:12 PM
 #15735

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 Roll Eyes

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

Why would you transfer "sidecoin" when they have $0 value ?  You cannot transfer value using invaluable tokens.  It is like a want buy gold and you give me  gold + your garbage. How this garbage can add value to gold ?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:24:42 PM
 #15736

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

!!!

yes it is possible.

but address this question : is this desirable for the user? why would I use a sidechain that issues sidecoin if I can use a sidechain with the exact same feature that works only with the 1:1 peg. who would use the "sidecoin" when he has the option of the risk free put of the scBTC



as a user and a miner myself, who is losing money mining btw, i would use this SC for 2 reasons; faster tx times for my scBTC thru the peg  and because it's protected by the risk free put AND i would mine the SC either thru MM or directly b/c of the added revenue of sidecoin block rewards and the associated tx fees.

this is called greed in action.

edit:  AND as a speculative bet on the sidecoin appreciation.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:26:48 PM
 #15737

One could design a SC with a sidecoin plus a faster  tx time for scBTC, I think.

Which goes back to the question i had for you yesterday, is this possible?

Possible I guess, but let me spin the question around. Is this desirable?

Remember that in that scenario the sidecoin does NOT have the same value as the scBTC residing on the same chain.

Ok, we're making progres.  If it's possible then it's a given it will be done. And if it's done, miners WILL defect out of greed to the sc.  So now you'd have 2 drivers of the sc; users and miners. That will kill Bitcoi.  

 Roll Eyes

Why are you so conveniently ignoring the essential argument?

NO ONE CARES FOR A SIDECHAIN WITH A SIDECOIN. Users will NOT use it because it does not offer the risk-free put and if users do NOT use it then miners have no incentive to mine it.

maybe we're having a definitional misunderstanding?  as i understand it "sidecoin", as you've termed it, is an independent coin that can only be produced on the SC thru mining SC blocks for reward.  it cannot be interchanged with scBTC which is derived from BTC as a result of the 1:1 peg. and sidecoin can't travel thru the peg into the MC.  in this scenario, i envision both travelling securely within the SC, both being secured by MM or direct mining.  they will both be mined for tx fees on the SC and both can take advantage of faster tx times.

is this technically accurate and possible?  b/c if it is, then Bitcoin will die.  if it's not, then your argument is strengthened altho i still see problems.

Why would you transfer "sidecoin" when they have $0 value ?  You cannot transfer value using invaluable tokens.  It is like a want buy gold and you give me  gold + your garbage. How this garbage can add value to gold ?

b/c there will always be some idiots speculating miners and investors who WILL value it. just look at altcoin valuations.  they're small but they're there and can be sold for fiat.  it would also be possible for the sidecoin to actually take off in value which would really be a huge bonus.
21coin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 481


Sarthak's a dumb girl


View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:31:25 PM
 #15738

gold is at lowest level since 2011
its trading at price of march 2010
and still no one know how much it can drop
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:31:54 PM
 #15739

gold is at lowest level since 2011
its trading at price of march 2010
and still no one know how much it can drop

i know (how much it can drop)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 05, 2014, 03:32:03 PM
 #15740

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.

What about this SC.
1. Server(or miners on SC) will collect transactions in SC.
2. When server collect enough fees then server will mine block  and use this fees for timestamping hash of block on MC
3. I think my SC will have same security level as MC -> hidden MM

And if it works, you've just made my point about how you can suck value out of Bitcoin with games by severing the link between the currency and MC

The link can even be severed by MM SC and 51% hashing attack on Bitcoin. The insensitive to mine Bitcoin for profit is no longer preventing this as the profit comes from mining the SC.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 ... 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!