Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2017, 06:23:19 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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] 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1978711 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:18:41 AM
 #15921


That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
 

I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains.

They individually decide that, since the sidecoin is lower value, but can be changed for bitcoin at the fixed, high rate, they are better off converting to bitcoin.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506061399
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506061399

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506061399
Reply with quote  #2

1506061399
Report to moderator
1506061399
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506061399

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506061399
Reply with quote  #2

1506061399
Report to moderator
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:19:43 AM
 #15922


SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?

Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:21:08 AM
 #15923

sure!

NO

How? well, first you make the change to the protocol and the market does the rest.

so my question is is it possible yes or no?

my answer is categorically NO.

it is not black or white. it is also yellow, green, purple, orange, red.

in a sidechain world, value resides on multiple different chains that operate in synergy. miners will mine wherever there is value. when you consider that the 5% you are referring to might translate to millions of dollars I don't see any reason for them to abandon that revenue stream since it is trivial for them to support 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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:23:01 AM
 #15924

Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.

But sidechains were not create to create altcoins. There is something called altcoins that exist for that purpose

"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 06, 2014, 01:24:15 AM
 #15925


This is competition, this is bitcoin, this is what sidechains offer, decentralized implementation of new features.


how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements?  

SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

You can easily innovate with new PoW options for example, those sidechains by definition could not MM with Bitcoin and would need their own miners, but that is fine. SC could also have new incentive structures (such as different fees) or different ways to store/compress blocks or different ways to communicate transactions. You can make them be anything you want.

The point clearly went over your head. SC is not for testing features, it is for implementing features.

If you've ever tried to role out new software to an installed user base you would understand why this is so useful.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:31:50 AM
 #15926


SC are an horrible hybrid, imagine creating an assent you want like a house and when you buy it your BTC get locked away. sure you get your BTC back when you destroy your house, but why exchange back if you want your house more then the BTC.  If SC are allowed on the prototypical level BTC won't be used as an exchange of value the SC will.

NewLiberty described it well; why let your competitor into the Core engine of your business?

imagine you're an entrepreneur with a start up.  your biz model has gone from $0 to $4 billion in value and your stock from $0 to $325 in just 6yrs.  your top competitor comes to you and says, "let me set up my biz within your walls here.  i'll stay out of the way over here in the corner.  i know you don't have time to test that top innovation you've been wanting to implement so let me do it instead.  don't mind the fact that i'll be attracting away from your customer base in the meantime and making some money while i'm at it, i'll return all of them in time along with a working implementation of your idea, i promise.

would you let him in?

Still reading from page 780 but I just wanted to say, this sold it for me. Against. If you want to build an alt then you need to get enough of a community and userbase on your own. If you're coin is innovative that won't be a problem. Also, if your coin can just be merge mined with Bitcoin then it likely is not innovative enough.

Keep reading, sidechains are in no manner similar to altcoins. That is so far off the the mark that it is simply FUD at this point.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:34:55 AM
 #15927


That makes all the sense there is. It is the basic function of a market. If you try to fix prices, you will either have to much or too little goods. For instance in a business, if you fix wages below the market, the business will have problems finding workers. if you fix the wages at a higher rate than the market, there will be a queue of workers outside. If there is no quota in the gates (two way pegged sidechain), all workers will be hired in that business.
 

I'm sorry but I don't see the correlation. You'll have to develop your scenario on how market participant decide unanimously to converge to either chains.

They individually decide that, since the sidecoin is lower value, but can be changed for bitcoin at the fixed, high rate, they are better off converting to bitcoin.


 Roll Eyes

the logic is sidecoin offers a feature that is not available on the Bitcoin 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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:37:38 AM
 #15928

how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements? 


SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

GREAT ARGUMENTS!

Man you really showed him! I especially like the parts about "SC is a terrible solution for testing features" and "Testnet is where you test bitcoin features"

Way to go bro!

"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 06, 2014, 01:39:59 AM
 #15929

if I get greater value from a SC why convert back to the Bitcoin. no need to quantify value the market uses subjective criteria to define it (i like it more is sufficient) but for this argument lets just say it has higher liquidity and confirmation times.

as for the question try answering it again with the new understanding you were lacking before.

Because Bitcoin is more secure, hence the reserve, or vault comparison.

Sure it might come a point where everyone wanting to use BTC as day-to-day currency will leave them on a sidechain for convenience purposes but while some transfer parties value convenience, anonymity or what not, others value security.

And Bitcoin is inherently more secure than any sidechains. For that reason it will continue to be used for high value transfer, inter-bank settlements and what not

I think the problem is you are misguided as to what people value. Different strokes for different folks. That's the beauty of sidechains
come on brg444 your jumping all over the show lets just finish addressing your assumptions 1 at a time you can't prove an argument on an assumption that is in debate it's like you aren't reading this thread!

if you sent out a one liner that doesn't relate the question and the respondent brings it back into focus you should address it so we can move on. this is going no where because you not reading or taking the time to comprehend. and arguing for goodness sake.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:40:18 AM
 #15930

The point clearly went over your head.

Don't feel too bad, it's been that way for the last 20 pages  Cheesy

"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 06, 2014, 01:42:10 AM
 #15931

come on brg444 your jumping all over the show lets just finish addressing your assumptions 1 at a time you can't prove an argument on an assumption that is in debate it's like you aren't reading this thread!

if you sent out a one liner that doesn't relate the question and the respondent brings it back into focus you should address it so we can move on. this is going no where because you not reading or taking the time to comprehend. and arguing for goodness sake.  

I'm sorry, your  team keeps moving the goal post I'm not sure what to address anymore  Huh

So what was your misunderstanding again?

"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
Deadstock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 147


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:45:42 AM
 #15932

Silver hit $15 today
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:50:52 AM
 #15933

Altcoins are competition, that's good, I'm not advocating you should buy them. 

No, money doesn't need competition. Money thrives the most as a singular, monopolistic participant in the market.

why adopt bitcoin?

Because there is nothing else in the modern era that functions as money, at least since paper gold destroyed real gold.

"No, money doesn't need competition" BS - people think this guy has insight? we have a Fiat monopoly we need competition, if there is something better than Fiat i want it, I want it to thrive in a free market as proof, if there is something better than Bitcoin I want that too.

It was just a light comment, driven by the fact that Fiat is not actually money. Calm down.
why adopt bitcoin? is light question reflecting the ignorance that we need to destroy competition to make bitcoin succeed.  the only problem with fiat is inflation, the majority in the world believe that make it good money.

Bitcoin the Blockchain - not BTC, its the value is resides, BTC is how we manage proof of ownership. it is preserved and regulated because of the incentive structure that is what makes it viable, Bitcoin is the only shot we have an hard money, and the proposed protocol change will Preserve the 21M BTC but allow institutions to extract value from the blockchain by creating assets outside the incentive structure.

this is the same problem with fiat, 1 in a million see the problem of inflation, this proposed change will have the same effect on Bitcoin.

 

this is where you are continuously wrong.

the incentive structure doesn't get avoided, it merely expands into sub network of shared value
My deductions can be wrong, but Im talking about a situation where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

As time goes on and the block chain subsidy is reduced is it conceivable that a situation could arise where I MM and as a miner I can get 95% of my income from MM SC and 5% while MM bitcoin? is it not?
my answer is categorically NO.

it is not black or white. it is also yellow, green, purple, orange, red.

in a sidechain world, value resides on multiple different chains that operate in synergy. miners will mine wherever there is value. when you consider that the 5% you are referring to might translate to millions of dollars I don't see any reason for them to abandon that revenue stream since it is trivial for them to support it.

so your saying NO it is categorically imposable for a situation to arise where where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

or just saying NO becaue your not reading? and trimming posts and sporting nonce.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:54:25 AM
 #15934

so your saying NO it is categorically imposable for a situation to arise where where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

or just saying NO becaue your not reading? and trimming posts and sporting nonce.

If you mean from mining SCs (note the s) then yes absolutely. Because that probably translates to a considerable amount of sidechains splitting the 70% pie with the other 30% going to the BTC chain.

That sounds plausible to me.

So your suggestion is miners have no use for the millions of dollars representing that 30% right? Yup you right they should probably drop 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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:59:27 AM
 #15935


This is competition, this is bitcoin, this is what sidechains offer, decentralized implementation of new features.


how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements?  

SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

You can easily innovate with new PoW options for example, those sidechains by definition could not MM with Bitcoin and would need their own miners, but that is fine. SC could also have new incentive structures (such as different fees) or different ways to store/compress blocks or different ways to communicate transactions. You can make them be anything you want.

The point clearly went over your head. SC is not for testing features, it is for implementing features.

If you've ever tried to role out new software to an installed user base you would understand why this is so useful.
yes one could have a scripted mining system, or some other format that was not MM, but it wouldn't be very secure from hacking and a week point if we have BTC in that SC so not likely.

so fee based reward innovation only, how about incentivising Block rewards on a normal distribution curve instead of the stepped Block function. every innovation i crave for an Altcoin cant be done in a SC.

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 02:02:43 AM
 #15936

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Whose incentives?

If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other?

"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 02:11:27 AM
 #15937

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Whose incentives?

If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other?
Nobody has answered yet what the revenue model for Blockstream is.

Until they explain themselves, it's reasonable to assume they intent to derive some financial benefit from the existence and usage of sidechains.

In that case, clearly any innovations in the main chain that reduce the need for sidechains are a threat to the revenue of Blockstream.

Unless they offer an alternate explanation of how (or if?) they intend to repay their investors, this looks like a severe conflict of interests.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 02:11:47 AM
 #15938

so your saying NO it is categorically imposable for a situation to arise where where I MM and as a miner I can get 70% of my income from MM SC and 30% while MM bitcoin?

or just saying NO becaue your not reading? and trimming posts and sporting nonce.

If you mean from mining SCs (note the s) then yes absolutely. Because that probably translates to a considerable amount of sidechains splitting the 70% pie with the other 30% going to the BTC chain.

That sounds plausible to me.

So your suggestion is miners have no use for the millions of dollars representing that 30% right? Yup you right they should probably drop it!

that's not economically practical, make a futures trade on some basket of SC's and 51% attack Bitcoin that economically incentive.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 02:15:49 AM
 #15939

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Whose incentives?

If we use the same ledger who gets any more incentive for using one particular chain or the other?
Nobody has answered yet what the revenue model for Blockstream is.

Until they explain themselves, it's reasonable to assume they intent to derive some financial benefit from the existence and usage of sidechains.

In that case, clearly any innovations in the main chain that reduce the need for sidechains are a threat to the revenue of Blockstream.

Unless they offer an alternate explanation of how (or if?) they intend to repay their investors, this looks like a severe conflict of interests.

It seems obvious to me.

They're the redhat for Bitcoin.

They build decentralized infrastructure for companies on top of sidechains.

Let me spin the question around and ask how they could maliciously profit from sidechains?

"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 06, 2014, 02:16:48 AM
 #15940


This is competition, this is bitcoin, this is what sidechains offer, decentralized implementation of new features.


how does one innovate with new incentive options in this SC system, say incentivising storage or bandwidth, how does one go about experimenting with new PoW replacements?  

SC is an terrible solution for testing features that could compete with bitcoin, Testnet is where you test bitcoin features. the few market is where you test something else.

You can easily innovate with new PoW options for example, those sidechains by definition could not MM with Bitcoin and would need their own miners, but that is fine. SC could also have new incentive structures (such as different fees) or different ways to store/compress blocks or different ways to communicate transactions. You can make them be anything you want.

The point clearly went over your head. SC is not for testing features, it is for implementing features.

If you've ever tried to role out new software to an installed user base you would understand why this is so useful.
yes one could have a scripted mining system, or some other format that was not MM, but it wouldn't be very secure from hacking and a week point if we have BTC in that SC so not likely.

so fee based reward innovation only, how about incentivising Block rewards on a normal distribution curve instead of the stepped Block function. every innovation i crave for an Altcoin cant be done in a SC.

its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin. if a SC innovation gets traction you bet it wont be adopted, the incentives are the wrong way around.

Regarding "Block rewards on a normal distribution curve instead of the stepped Block function".

This would change the Sound Money aspect because it changes the release and quantity of btc. Sidechains rightly do not effect this in any manner. The fact you are making this argument after claiming SC's are inflationary is shocking.

Regarding " its a test bed as Justus put it to stop Bitcoin type innovation making it to the Bitcoin."

Sidechains ARE bitcoin, there is little need for features in a sidechains to be in the main chain also (although very popular ones can be moved).

You must not be a programmer, the main chain is a parent class and a side chain is a child class. This is the right way to look at it.

Adrian at this point it is clear you don't know what you are talking about, you last several replies have demonstrated no understanding of the topic or of bitcoin.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 ... 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!