Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 07:19:40 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 ... 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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807622 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:03:20 AM
 #15921

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.
1481354380
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354380

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354380
Reply with quote  #2

1481354380
Report to moderator
1481354380
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354380

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354380
Reply with quote  #2

1481354380
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481354380
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354380

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354380
Reply with quote  #2

1481354380
Report to moderator
1481354380
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481354380

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481354380
Reply with quote  #2

1481354380
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:11:28 AM
 #15922

I'll point my miners wherever i get the biggest reward, (value as i define it) I'll MM anything of value, if my business is sustained by tx feed in a SC blocks, and the Bitcoin Block reward is not a significant income stream, I will have no incentive to mine it. the hashrate will grow on the chain that has the most value, I may even keep earning income on the SC and contribute to a coordinated attack to prevent people moving out of the profitable SC and into Bitcoin, note there would be an insignificant cost to me to do so, as I get my income from the SC.    

The dynamics have changed since SC has enter the scene.

You are no more required to only mine one chain. You can simultaneously MM ANY chain that has considerable value and support the system has a whole. Creating a security hole in any of the interconnecting chains can be damageable to all of them you not only do you have economic incentive to mine all of them to secure different streams of revenue but as a miner you should also support most chains who gain any traction and community traction to secure the whole ecosystem.

I'll MM anything of value

In a SC scenario, there is no more only one chain with value. And growth in value of other, interconnected chains likely converge to all the other chains.

Of all the likely scenario, the death of the main chain because is the most far fetched one as it is the root for the whole system.

"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 06, 2014, 12:13:08 AM
 #15923

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).


You'll have to explain why because all signs point to the contrary

"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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:13:22 AM
 #15924

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.

... as decided by the free market.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:17:59 AM
 #15925

"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.

But altcoins so far have not proved to be anything but Bitcoin clones with little innovation of sound economics behind them.

My point was that the world works better using only ONE form of money. Innovation of the money technology != competition.

Altcoins in theory should only exist as a lab for innovation. They have been perverted as pump & dump scheme because of the necessity for them to create their own currency. Now that sidechains exist we remove this issue and return to the essence of altchains : a complementary chain to Bitcoin's economy that serves as a testing ground for new features. 

"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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:18:14 AM
 #15926

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement.  i've talked about this for years here.  how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing.  who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.  

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up.  
 

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a  bunch of people cheer, yet they do  nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).


whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

Well I thought sidecoin was well defined, the same as sxBTC (a bitcoin paralyzed in the blockchain, wandering about in the sidechain until it is extinguished. If you ask me, that is the only form of coin we have to consider from the sidecoin sidechain whitepaper.

I think it was brg444 who started the cloudy thinking here.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:20:29 AM
 #15927


whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

If it is pegged 1:1 then BTC goes up in value with it.

If it's not then it's just another altcoin. A backdoor re-introduction of your GOVcoin scenario I suppose. Explain to me again how sidechains created this problem?

"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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:21:22 AM
 #15928

i actually think the underlying problem here is that some of us see Bitcoin as Sound Money who's sanctity is to be protected at all costs, like me, and others see it as an avenue to develop stocks, bonds, community currencies, assurance contracts, smart contracts, etc, etc.

as Bitcoin stands, it makes anything other than money very difficult to implement.  i've talked about this for years here.  how many times have i said "The Blockchain may only ever be applicable to Bitcoin as Money"?

if you don't buy into this view, then SC's seem like a natural thing.  who cares if somehow a little inflation, centralization, or trust requiring needs slip in the backdoor?

I have a count of 3 Bitcoin proponents who see what you see, - sad reflection on comprehension skill. If Blockstreem gets to implement the protocol change to allow the extraction of value from the blockchain, we may get another chance at sound money in another 100 years, who knows, it could be longer as the sad truth is the majority cant see how this proposal destroys the one hope we have at sound money.  

The sad thing is those crazy evaluations people where projecting wont materialist, they'll be eaten by inflation in the SC that your tormenters are so eager to see happen.

There is still a chance they wake up.  
 

And yet we have PeterR pop in here, say Bitcoin is a sound money ledger and a  bunch of people cheer, yet they do  nothing to defend those exact same principles from guys like brg444 and odalv.

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).


whats sxBTC, (locked in BTC?)

if it was just Bitcoin and no other interests I'd agree with you, but as there is potential to for BTC to be a reserve currency, just a small amount of global fiat demand can make launch a pegged SC.

A sidecoin is another type of money, even if there is the peg. It will have a separate value, but it will not be allowed to float. It will either take over, or more probably, not be used at all. Due to the peg, a binary outcome.

Edit: Used means used for saving, hoarding, kept as a cash balance or kept for any reason, the only thing that gives the money value.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 06, 2014, 12:25:48 AM
 #15929

Bitcoin the currency will never leave Bitcoin the Blockchain, even with sidechains.  Sidechains just gives you more potential uses for your Bitcoins.... locking them gains you tokens that have added functionality.
Side chains create a place to experiment with new functionality, and also create people who have an financial incentive to make sure that functionality never makes it into the main chain.

Do you where else it's possible to test new features?

Testnet.

Where is it possible to test features too invasive for even testnet?

The btcd team has produced a great feature called simnet where you can easily bootstrap a small mining network that tests modifications of the Bitcoin protocol.

All the tools needed to develop and test safe upgrades to the protocol already exist.

If the Bitcoin Core team doesn't have enough software engineering and project management resources to push the protocol forward now, employing half of them at Blockstream and adding new opcodes to Bitcoin isn't going to magically fix anything.

You know, the Blockstream idea must have been going on for at least a year.

Had anyone stopped to think that maybe no innovations have gotten done because the core devs involved with Blockstream have wanted to strengthen their case? 
The first time I heard about this idea (before it was called sidechains) was a conference where I met Adam Back. Pretty sure it was the first Inside Bitcoins conference in Las Vegas, if not then it would have been the 2013 San Jose conference.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:35:11 AM
 #15930

I don't think a pegged scBTC is economically feasible.

(Who the fuck started to redefine sidecoin to be something else than sxBTC).


You'll have to explain why because all signs point to the contrary

The paper does not use sidecoin or sxBTC. They use sidechain coin and bitcoin. They try to say that it remains a bitcoin while it travels the sidechain. I guess that could be called a sidecoin.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:39:42 AM
 #15931


The paper does not use sidecoin or sxBTC. They use sidechain coin and bitcoin. They try to say that it remains a bitcoin while it travels the sidechain. I guess that could be called a sidecoin.


I'm referring to your doubt of a tied value peg between the two units

"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 06, 2014, 12:40:18 AM
 #15932

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.

 

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

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:45:27 AM
 #15933


The paper does not use sidecoin or sxBTC. They use sidechain coin and bitcoin. They try to say that it remains a bitcoin while it travels the sidechain. I guess that could be called a sidecoin.


I'm referring to your doubt of a tied value peg between the two units

I don't doubt that it is possible to peg it, locking the bitcoin and then guarantee the conversion back to bitcoin at the pegged rate. Only that the economics of it doesn't work as the authors believe. Since it has different characteristics, (that is the point) (and don't forget the difference in liquidity), it would have a different value if it was floated. Therefore, the peg with no restrictions in conversion volume will necessary make value either move fully to bitcoin, or fully to the sidechain.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:46:41 AM
 #15934

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

"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 06, 2014, 12:46:47 AM
 #15935

I'll point my miners wherever i get the biggest reward, (value as i define it) I'll MM anything of value, if my business is sustained by tx feed in a SC blocks, and the Bitcoin Block reward is not a significant income stream, I will have no incentive to mine it. the hashrate will grow on the chain that has the most value, I may even keep earning income on the SC and contribute to a coordinated attack to prevent people moving out of the profitable SC and into Bitcoin, note there would be an insignificant cost to me to do so, as I get my income from the SC.    

The dynamics have changed since SC has enter the scene.

You are no more required to only mine one chain. You can simultaneously MM ANY chain that has considerable value and support the system has a whole. Creating a security hole in any of the interconnecting chains can be damageable to all of them you not only do you have economic incentive to mine all of them to secure different streams of revenue but as a miner you should also support most chains who gain any traction and community traction to secure the whole ecosystem.

I'll MM anything of value

In a SC scenario, there is no more only one chain with value. And growth in value of other, interconnected chains likely converge to all the other chains.

Of all the likely scenario, the death of the main chain because is the most far fetched one as it is the root for the whole system.
when you stop converting into the main chain and you have lots of other more valuable chains this is called inflation.

I'm still unsure where miners get there intensive to support a chain that docent provide a mining investment. when you can explain that you'll have me.

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:48:27 AM
 #15936

Therefore, the peg with no restrictions in conversion volume will necessary make value either move fully to bitcoin, or fully to the sidechain.

That doesn't make much sense. Can you explain your thoughts on the mechanics of 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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:52:21 AM
 #15937

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?

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:56:23 AM
 #15938

when you stop converting into the main chain and you have lots of other more valuable chains this is called inflation.

I'm still unsure where miners get there intensive to support a chain that docent provide a mining investment. when you can explain that you'll have me.

you'll have to phrase the first one differently because I don't quite get what you're saying. what do you mean by "stop converting into the main chain". how do you qualify more valuable chains? more txs?

As for your question.

Bitcoin has one advantage over sidechains - it has the subsidy, and full node security, so I'm sure it'll be able to defend itself against abandonment or insecurity, and sidechains depend on bitcoin anyway so all bitcoin users on which ever chains have a meta-incentive to see bitcoin main remain secure.   We have decades of subsidy ahead to deal with fee-only security for bitcoin, and sidechains may move forward the ways to do that because the sidechain by default has only fee security from the start.

You expect that all txs converge to one chain and create THE most valuable chain for miners to mine but in a world of sidechain how does that work? Is it the anonymous chain? Is it the fast tx chain? How does the miner decide? Maybe... just maybe... he should mine... ALL of them. Does that not make sense to you?

"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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 12:56:58 AM
 #15939

Therefore, the peg with no restrictions in conversion volume will necessary make value either move fully to bitcoin, or fully to the sidechain.

That doesn't make much sense. Can you explain your thoughts on the mechanics of that?

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.
 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 06, 2014, 01:00:57 AM
 #15940

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?

Or maybe it is more like

10% from SC1, 5% from SC2, 2% from SC3, 3% from SC4, 20% from SC5, 30% from SC6, 30% from BTC.

Don't you think?

Also, the premise of your argument is that there are effectively no more tx happening on the Bitcoin network. You have yet to come up with a plausible scenario as to how this would happen. Considering its reserve status, my impression is that maybe the number of transactions would be fewer but the value of each of them would be considerably larger than on other chains.

"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
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 ... 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!