Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 09:36:52 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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] 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010378 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 11:07:35 PM
 #16081

cypherdoc, Is not SC amazing ? They can do what they want, they only have to deliver cryptographic PROOF to MC miners.
 - cypherdoc moved X coins to SC -> we have his signature
 - cypherdoc spend Y coins in SC -> we have his signature
 - cypherdoc  wants X-Y BTC -> it is ok we have his signature



we still need to see all the details on how these are constructed.

given all the different abbreviations mixed with your english, half the time i don't understand what you're saying, btw.

I'm sorry for my english, I'm not native speaker. But everything what humans can verify computer can too. :-) => and bitcoin can do.

Quote
The required expressiveness could be added in a safe, compatible, and highly compartmentalised way ( e.g. , by converting a no-op instruction into an OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY in a soft-fork). However, the difficulty of building consensus for and deploying even simple new features is non-trivial.

...

Fortunately, by adopting some additional security assumptions at the expense of the low trust design objective, it is possible to do an initial deployment in a completely permissionless way. The key observation is that any enhancement to Bitcoin Script can be implemented externally by having a trusted federation of mutually distrusting functionaries evaluate the script and accept by
signing for an ordinary multisignature script. That is, the functionaries act as a protocol adaptor
by evaluating the same rules we would have wanted Bitcoin to evaluate, but cannot for lack of script enhancements. Using this we can achieve a federated peg.
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511213812
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511213812

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511213812
Reply with quote  #2

1511213812
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 11:12:39 PM
 #16082

But everything what humans can verify computer can too. :-) => and bitcoin can do.


well now, see, this is what NL was referring to.  hyperbole.

i personally don't think computer's can do everything.  there are going to be times when humans need to intervene.  in fact, computers do what humans tell them to do most of the time and if that is fraud, computers will commit fraud.

these are the things i worry about with Blockstream.  they stand to make alot of money on this.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 06, 2014, 11:54:35 PM
 #16083

But everything what humans can verify computer can too. :-) => and bitcoin can do.


well now, see, this is what NL was referring to.  hyperbole.

i personally don't think computer's can do everything.  there are going to be times when humans need to intervene.  in fact, computers do what humans tell them to do most of the time and if that is fraud, computers will commit fraud.

these are the things i worry about with Blockstream.  they stand to make alot of money on this.

Yes, I agree. It is not easy to create the process (sequence of tasks and transaction that must be verifiable by computer).  But I think, it is achievable. If you know how to do it better then you are free to do it (for free or for more money).

Bitcoin is open source, everybody can make changes and run their own clone (we already have thousands of alt-clones). Profit or non-profit company can create whitepaper and implement new changes. Users and miners can choose if it makes sense to use or not.

And it is only beginning, more for-profit companies comes in next years.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:00:01 AM
 #16084

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:18:20 AM
 #16085

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  


owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:19:28 AM
 #16086

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  

Yes they have broken their charter because an investor cannot cash out his stake that has been lent and is being used by the borrower.

The BTC is not secure, it can be spent through the use of the SC coin.

"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 07, 2014, 12:23:04 AM
 #16087

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  


owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.

so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:26:35 AM
 #16088

i personally don't think computer's can do everything.  there are going to be times when humans need to intervene.  in fact, computers do what humans tell them to do most of the time and if that is fraud, computers will commit fraud.

these are the things i worry about with Blockstream.  they stand to make alot of money on this.

I'm curious where the worry about Blockstream comes from.

Everything would be implemented in a completely open-source manner. Blockstream would have zero control to dictate anything.

The only thing Blockstream would have is domain expertise around sidechains. Expertise that anyone else can gain BTW. The only thing they could do with that expertise is to lend it out as consultants to help other entities implement their own sidechains. This is the Redhat model as stated before.

Other individuals or entities could easily replace Blockstream and Blockstream could entirely disappear with no effect. This is the same as Satoshi disappearing. We all agree Satoshi does not control Bitcoin and do not worry about him.

The situation between Satoshi & Bitcoin and Blockstream & sidechains seems the same to me, so why worry about Blockstream? Is there something different missed?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:26:50 AM
 #16089

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  


owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.

so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?

don't know for sure but you can bet on it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:29:59 AM
 #16090

i personally don't think computer's can do everything.  there are going to be times when humans need to intervene.  in fact, computers do what humans tell them to do most of the time and if that is fraud, computers will commit fraud.

these are the things i worry about with Blockstream.  they stand to make alot of money on this.

I'm curious where the worry about Blockstream comes from.

Everything would be implemented in a completely open-source manner. Blockstream would have zero control to dictate anything.

The only thing Blockstream would have is domain expertise around sidechains. Expertise that anyone else can gain BTW. The only thing they could do with that expertise is to lend it out as consultants to help other entities implement their own sidechains. This is the Redhat model as stated before.

Other individuals or entities could easily replace Blockstream and Blockstream could entirely disappear with no effect. This is the same as Satoshi disappearing. We all agree Satoshi does not control Bitcoin and do not worry about him.

The situation between Satoshi & Bitcoin and Blockstream & sidechains seems the same to me, s so why worry about Blockstream? Is there something different missed?

it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:31:07 AM
 #16091

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  


owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.

so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?

don't know for sure but you can bet on it.

this "paper gold" is it in effect just CB's that lend it out, or with fractional reserves, where does it come from?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:32:19 AM
 #16092

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  


owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.

so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?

don't know for sure but you can bet on it.

this "paper gold" is it in effect just CB's that lend it out, or with fractional reserves, where does it come from?

GLD buys it and stores it in a vault.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:36:46 AM
 #16093


it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.

You can create as many branches with as many commit privileges as you wish.
I can create one -> where no one will commit (core developer or not)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:37:41 AM
 #16094

it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.

I'm not certain how exactly github commit work but given the hypothesis that an open source feature becomes so obviously valuable all of the community agrees it should be implemented into the mainchain I don't see how even the Blockstream devs could stop it from happening.

As far as I know they don't have veto power.

"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 07, 2014, 12:39:37 AM
 #16095

it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.

I'm not certain how exactly github commit work but given the hypothesis that an open source feature becomes so obviously valuable all of the community agrees it should be implemented into the mainchain I don't see how even the Blockstream devs could stop it from happening.

As far as I know they don't have veto power.

the pessimistic view would be they could all make alot of noise and deception to disrupt consensus if they had enough financial motivation to do so.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:50:30 AM
 #16096

it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.

I'm not certain how exactly github commit work but given the hypothesis that an open source feature becomes so obviously valuable all of the community agrees it should be implemented into the mainchain I don't see how even the Blockstream devs could stop it from happening.

As far as I know they don't have veto power.

the pessimistic view would be they could all make alot of noise and deception to disrupt consensus if they had enough financial motivation to do so.

Two developer can only make so much noise over a community of others.

I don't see it. Remember also that they have ethics clauses in their Blockstream contract.

Bottom line is the Blockstream team is not there to invent altcoins that compete with Bitcoin's cryptomoney function. Unless you want to paint malicious intent on them without probable cause. This in itself is not very ethical if I might say.

"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: 1149


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:52:04 AM
 #16097

i personally don't think computer's can do everything.  there are going to be times when humans need to intervene.  in fact, computers do what humans tell them to do most of the time and if that is fraud, computers will commit fraud.

these are the things i worry about with Blockstream.  they stand to make alot of money on this.

I'm curious where the worry about Blockstream comes from.

Everything would be implemented in a completely open-source manner. Blockstream would have zero control to dictate anything.

The only thing Blockstream would have is domain expertise around sidechains. Expertise that anyone else can gain BTW. The only thing they could do with that expertise is to lend it out as consultants to help other entities implement their own sidechains. This is the Redhat model as stated before.

Other individuals or entities could easily replace Blockstream and Blockstream could entirely disappear with no effect. This is the same as Satoshi disappearing. We all agree Satoshi does not control Bitcoin and do not worry about him.

The situation between Satoshi & Bitcoin and Blockstream & sidechains seems the same to me, s so why worry about Blockstream? Is there something different missed?

it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.

OK, that makes sense. But isn't that still the same as Bitcoin in 2009/10/11 where Satoshi and later Gavin had control over commit privileges? The protocol change for sidechains is one time, after that the 5 guys in Blockstream have limited influence.

What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.

It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.

It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.

And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 12:52:40 AM
 #16098

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  


owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.

so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?

don't know for sure but you can bet on it.

this "paper gold" is it in effect just CB's that lend it out, or with fractional reserves, where does it come from?

GLD buys it and stores it in a vault.
I was under the impression that there was more paper gold in circulation than there is actual gold in vaults, is that not the case? is all paper gold a 1:1 ratio?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 01:03:51 AM
 #16099

i personally don't think computer's can do everything.  there are going to be times when humans need to intervene.  in fact, computers do what humans tell them to do most of the time and if that is fraud, computers will commit fraud.

these are the things i worry about with Blockstream.  they stand to make alot of money on this.

I'm curious where the worry about Blockstream comes from.

Everything would be implemented in a completely open-source manner. Blockstream would have zero control to dictate anything.

The only thing Blockstream would have is domain expertise around sidechains. Expertise that anyone else can gain BTW. The only thing they could do with that expertise is to lend it out as consultants to help other entities implement their own sidechains. This is the Redhat model as stated before.

Other individuals or entities could easily replace Blockstream and Blockstream could entirely disappear with no effect. This is the same as Satoshi disappearing. We all agree Satoshi does not control Bitcoin and do not worry about him.

The situation between Satoshi & Bitcoin and Blockstream & sidechains seems the same to me, s so why worry about Blockstream? Is there something different missed?

it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.

OK, that makes sense. But isn't that still the same as Bitcoin in 2009/10/11 where Satoshi and later Gavin had control over commit privileges? The protocol change for sidechains is one time, after that the 5 guys in Blockstream have limited influence.

What this does is to decentralize implementation of new features. Today you have to go through a small number of people to get a commit accepted. With sidechains anyone can implement a new feature and the community can choose which to adopt. This puts the power to extend features directly in the hands of the community and out of the hands of the few commiters of today. This is decentralized implementation of features, which has tremendous potential benefits.

It seems if you are worried about today's situation where only a few people have commit privileges and have too much influence over new features, then sidechains address that worry by removing power from these few people.

It seems another fear is SC's causing the main Bitcoin chain to become stagnate and thus unused over time, damaging the network. I guess I just see this as an upgrade path. If everyone switches to a SC, that SC because the main chain. The 21M ledger is still intact.

And it's actually a better upgrade path from today. Again today those 5 guys with commit privileges can push us all to upgrade. With SC's the upgrade is completely voluntary for individuals to move, everyone can decide on their own when they feel ready to move.

the way i understand the github process is that while you may be able to put patches up there freely, nothing can be written to the source code w/o consensus from the core devs themselves.  b/c the vast majority of them now work in one company, there is a potential for them to possibly insert what they want and definitely to block what they don't want.

JR has asked the question about technology that might obsolete the need for SC's and how that might get blocked.  he doesn't think his question got answered satisfactorily.  it is a potential problem that the community needs to address and talk about as it does have real world implications if abused.  they're basically saying "trust us".  it's up to you.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 01:05:02 AM
 #16100

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  


owners Winkelvii go to jail for violating their charter b/c scBTC is essentially one in the same as BTC and they weren't supposed to lend them out.

so are Gold ETF charters written in such a way that the gold can not be lent out?

don't know for sure but you can bet on it.

this "paper gold" is it in effect just CB's that lend it out, or with fractional reserves, where does it come from?

GLD buys it and stores it in a vault.
I was under the impression that there was more paper gold in circulation than there is actual gold in vaults, is that not the case? is all paper gold a 1:1 ratio?

no it's not.  you're talking about futures/derivatives contract abuse.  way more than there is gold.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 ... 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!