Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 03:55:21 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 ... 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] 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010133 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 06:54:59 PM
 #16141

I understand Sidechains at the level of how they would work if they did what they proposed to do, i haven't taken the time to understand the maths. I remain skeptical of the net benefit to Bitcoin in general. I'm happy to take Odalv at his word when he says summarizing a 20 page proof is not trivial. i can only imagine the introduction of the code to execute it is similar in complexity. my point being adding new code doesn't simplify the code we have, and i would rather see competition in code to execute the maths be tested in Alts before integrating the first proposal.

We completely agree on the need to be slow and careful and make sure the both the choice of which technology and what implementation be done with strong confidence that the choices made are better than any other alternatives. I've felt that in this thread there is a reaction to not make any changes or even explore options.

I happen to agree 99% with tvbcof  that the critical issues that can affect Bitcoin in the next 2 years are easy to adjust in the code mainly the block limit and the tx fees. (the 1% we disagree on is the 5 seconds, i think its more akin to a day or two once its been reviewed.) the complexity arising from the exsisting praposals comes from how to automate it.

We agree these are the main items to address in the near term. I just believe they are not the only changes needed.

I would feel far more comfortable if over the next 2 years we cleaned up the code we had, commenting it, and reconciling it with projects like btcd addressing the bug for bug issues that propagate over time. before introducing more financial complexity.  I empathize with the community as a whole to add features they think will increase there investment, however, i would rather see the code base fare more secure - and a stable foundation before adding new dependencies.

We disagree that the bug issues can ever be fixed adequately in the current development process. The whole problem it is they are part of the specification by default and because such an unbelievably massive effort to required to change anything, that the default is to leave them in.

I empathize with the community as a whole to add features they think will increase there investment, however, i would rather see the code base fare more secure - and a stable foundation before adding new dependencies.

I guess I see features as the main/only method to compete with fiat. As discussed earlier in this thread, fiat was a technological innovation over gold in terms of many ease of use aspects.

If we are to out compete with fiat, implementing more technological innovations is the best method. It is also replicates the method fiat used to take down gold.
"Bitcoin: the cutting edge of begging technology." -- Giraffe.BTC
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511193321
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511193321

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511193321
Reply with quote  #2

1511193321
Report to moderator
1511193321
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511193321

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511193321
Reply with quote  #2

1511193321
Report to moderator
1511193321
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511193321

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511193321
Reply with quote  #2

1511193321
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 06:57:16 PM
 #16142

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

And again you are simply stating an opinion as if it is fact but not responding to points made before.

The 2-way pegging process merge sidechains into the main chain as a single data structure. At any given time you could look at the bitcoin blockchain and billions of sidechains and see exactly where all 21M coins are in a completely open and transparent manner. That is the definition of a single seamless ledger that preserves the 21M cap and maintains the Sound Money aspect just as today.

It's fine to disagree, but so far you have not presented anything that counters that.

AndiI think your actually wrong here from a technical standpoint.

From what I understand from odalv and gmax is that these SC's can be private communities which would be using scBTC and we would never know it.  Certainly it seems like that way through the federated peg model. Remember these SC's are designed to fiction without having to have the Bitcoin network monitor them. The only thing that needs to be presented at the time of reentry into the Bitcoin network is a valid proof. In the meantime, maybe years, certainly the Bitcoin network has no idea what's going on with SC's and the scBTC involved so how would you?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 07:17:20 PM
 #16143

I guess I see features as the main/only method to compete with fiat. As discussed earlier in this thread, fiat was a technological innovation over gold in terms of many ease of use aspects.

If we are to out compete with fiat, implementing more technological innovations is the best method. It is also replicates the method fiat used to take down gold.


In my mind, the 1 order of magnitude year on year exponential growth, is competing effectively with fiat, and is so because it is seen as an inelastic asset. We may stall this year, but i dont think its because of lack of features, if anything it could be precisely because new investors are trying to mold it into something else before investing.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 07:18:01 PM
 #16144

Somewhat related to the ongoing debate on the sidechains concept,
this is a good-to-read thread on the bitcoin development mailing list:

http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BBitcoin-development%5D+The+difficulty+of+writing+consensus+critical+code%3A+the+SIGHASH_SINGLE+bug%22

particularly enlightening is this piece from Peter Todd in response to Justus:

Quote from: Peter Todd (emphasis mine)
In the current model, the specification *is* the protocol, and the
Bitcoin Core team is scared to death of changing anything; they've got
very little real power. Soft-forks are the minimum-viable way of making
changes to the protocol, and it's very clear how they get adopted:
minerr consensus. They're also a fundemental way of changing the
protocol that is impossible to prevent, so you might as well use it.

You'll find another insight of what's the real complexity of bitcoin
development at the beginning of the aforementioned thread.

Peter is talking about how every node alt-implementation has to
replicate the exact same behaviour of Bitcoin Core in terms of consensus
policies (even bugs if any), otherwise it will be forked off the network.
It is what he calls "bug-for-bug" compatibility. I've found it fascinating.

Another really interesting quote from Peter :

Quote from: Peter Todd
You know, the smartest thing the Bitcoin Foundation could do if they
wanted to cement their place in the Bitcoin ecosystem as a power broker
would be to setup a program of periodic hard-forks, say every year or
two, and then manage the committees that decide what goes into those
hard-forks. That they haven't suggested that yet is a sign that they're
either not evil, or they don't understand Bitcoin very well.

p.s. sorry for being way too OT

This a great summary of the issue. The bitcoin protocol is currently a mess today and worse there is no path to fix it.

The March 2013 fork was not caused by a new bug in the 0.8 version. It was caused because the 0.8 version did not contain a previously unknown bug in the 0.7 version. This unknown bug was part of the specification, but no one knew it was part of the specification. This is horrifying and will damage bitcoin in the long run. I think people think Bitcoin is more stable than it really is. The basic concepts and structure are great and all, but the implementation is not great. Worse the development process is fundamentally broken today so there is no way to fix known problems, it's a patchwork of turning bugs into specifications.

If you understand Sidechains they essentially are an attempt to fix the development process, that is all.

I understand Sidechains at the level of how they would work if they did what they proposed to do, i haven't taken the time to understand the maths. I remain skeptical of the net benefit to Bitcoin in general. I'm happy to take Odalv at his word when he says summarizing a 20 page proof is not trivial. i can only imagine the introduction of the code to execute it is similar in complexity. my point being adding new code doesn't simplify the code we have, and i would rather see competition in code to execute the maths be tested in Alts before integrating the first proposal.

I happen to agree 99% with tvbcof  that the critical issues that can affect Bitcoin in the next 2 years are easy to adjust in the code mainly the block limit and the tx fees. (the 1% we disagree on is the 5 seconds, i think its more akin to a day or two once its been reviewed.) the complexity arising from the exsisting praposals comes from how to automate it.

I would feel far more comfortable if over the next 2 years we cleaned up the code we had, commenting it, and reconciling it with projects like btcd addressing the bug for bug issues that propagate over time. before introducing more financial complexity.  I empathize with the community as a whole to add features they think will increase their investment, however, i would rather see the code base fare more secure - and a stable foundation before adding new dependencies.

Yes, simplicity is actually important for Bitcoin in terms of coding. Just like cash is simpl,  Bitcoin should be simple technically. Complexity otoh introduces risks to bitcoin and all our savings. Technicall,  Blockstream devs are among the best bitcoin devs. But how good are they at Economics?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 07:19:50 PM
 #16145

I guess I see features as the main/only method to compete with fiat. As discussed earlier in this thread, fiat was a technological innovation over gold in terms of many ease of use aspects.

If we are to out compete with fiat, implementing more technological innovations is the best method. It is also replicates the method fiat used to take down gold.


In my mind, the 1 order of magnitude year on year exponential growth, is competing effectively with fiat, and is so because it is seen as an inelastic asset. We may stall this year, but i dont think its because of lack of features, if anything it could be precisely because new investors are trying to mold it into something else.   
[/b]

+1
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 07:32:05 PM
 #16146

I guess I see features as the main/only method to compete with fiat. As discussed earlier in this thread, fiat was a technological innovation over gold in terms of many ease of use aspects.

If we are to out compete with fiat, implementing more technological innovations is the best method. It is also replicates the method fiat used to take down gold.


In my mind, the 1 order of magnitude year on year exponential growth, is competing effectively with fiat, and is so because it is seen as an inelastic asset. We may stall this year, but i dont think its because of lack of features, if anything it could be precisely because new investors are trying to mold it into something else.

+1

 Grin that makes me feel good about dumping, I hope some "new investors" feel smug in there new position, and incentivised to maintain the Status quo.  ( and i mean Status quo in the lightest sense I'm in no way proposing to hobble Bitcoin so it cant run away.)

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 07:37:20 PM
 #16147

Somewhat related to the ongoing debate on the sidechains concept,
this is a good-to-read thread on the bitcoin development mailing list:

http://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BBitcoin-development%5D+The+difficulty+of+writing+consensus+critical+code%3A+the+SIGHASH_SINGLE+bug%22

particularly enlightening is this piece from Peter Todd in response to Justus:

Quote from: Peter Todd (emphasis mine)
In the current model, the specification *is* the protocol, and the
Bitcoin Core team is scared to death of changing anything; they've got
very little real power. Soft-forks are the minimum-viable way of making
changes to the protocol, and it's very clear how they get adopted:
minerr consensus. They're also a fundemental way of changing the
protocol that is impossible to prevent, so you might as well use it.

You'll find another insight of what's the real complexity of bitcoin
development at the beginning of the aforementioned thread.

Peter is talking about how every node alt-implementation has to
replicate the exact same behaviour of Bitcoin Core in terms of consensus
policies (even bugs if any), otherwise it will be forked off the network.
It is what he calls "bug-for-bug" compatibility. I've found it fascinating.

Another really interesting quote from Peter :

Quote from: Peter Todd
You know, the smartest thing the Bitcoin Foundation could do if they
wanted to cement their place in the Bitcoin ecosystem as a power broker
would be to setup a program of periodic hard-forks, say every year or
two, and then manage the committees that decide what goes into those
hard-forks. That they haven't suggested that yet is a sign that they're
either not evil, or they don't understand Bitcoin very well.

p.s. sorry for being way too OT

This a great summary of the issue. The bitcoin protocol is currently a mess today and worse there is no path to fix it.

The March 2013 fork was not caused by a new bug in the 0.8 version. It was caused because the 0.8 version did not contain a previously unknown bug in the 0.7 version. This unknown bug was part of the specification, but no one knew it was part of the specification. This is horrifying and will damage bitcoin in the long run. I think people think Bitcoin is more stable than it really is. The basic concepts and structure are great and all, but the implementation is not great. Worse the development process is fundamentally broken today so there is no way to fix known problems, it's a patchwork of turning bugs into specifications.

If you understand Sidechains they essentially are an attempt to fix a broken development process and make it more open, that is all.

That's a decent description of what happened with 0.8 but that's not all of it. I wrote extensively about this at the time but some is a little fuzzy. The shift from BDB to LevelDB left behind a bug in how the database works.  That is" bad" and I belief be there are other examples of this. But a different  way to look at this is "so what? "  maybe these bugs were exactly why some ppl scoffed at bitcoin in 2009 only to be proven wrong over the last 6year.  It's working! What's the tech analogy? Html5?

0.8 was also a failure of a adequate advertising  to top players like gox. They never bothered to update.  We rolled it back and went on our way. NP
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 07:47:45 PM
 #16148

It's worse because it establishes a precedent, which in some people's minds, like mine, is a conflict of interest. It shows that a group of insiders who do have some control of what's written to the rules of Bitcoin, can go out and establish a for profut company whose business model is dependent on a source code change that they have the influence to push through due to their significant %of the dev team. The establishment of SC's is not necessarily the problem itself.  It would have been much easier  to accept if Blockstream wasnt involved or if the team was broken up into several different companies.  

I generally don't like analogies but it would be like i 40% of the Federal Reserve board decided to establish a for profit company designed to take advantage of their son to be implemented negative interest rate policy. I  suggest you would scream bloody murder and demand they step down at the very least. Blockstream devs refuse to do that either because they are afraid of failure, they truly are conflicted, or they think it doesn't matter. I think it does matter as they could use their positions to possibly block competition.

That makes complete sense, I get the concern.

I guess I think the risk exists with or without Blockstream going first. There will always be moneyed entities lobbying to change things to their benefit. Whether or not sidechains happen will not change that. Just look at DC.

I also think sidechains decrease the level of influence external interests have by providing another outlet to make changes. Take paypal for example, today if paypal wanted to do something they'd have to lobby the core developers and community. With sidechains the community would rightfully respond that no changes are needed because paypal could now just implement a sidechain.

So I see sidechains as reducing the need for moneyed interest to change bitcoin by providing an easier alternative to implement, sidechains become the path of least resistance. And for the community participation is optional (which is a good)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 07:54:33 PM
 #16149

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

And again you are simply stating an opinion as if it is fact but not responding to points made before.

The 2-way pegging process merge sidechains into the main chain as a single data structure. At any given time you could look at the bitcoin blockchain and billions of sidechains and see exactly where all 21M coins are in a completely open and transparent manner. That is the definition of a single seamless ledger that preserves the 21M cap and maintains the Sound Money aspect just as today.

It's fine to disagree, but so far you have not presented anything that counters that.

I think your actually wrong here from a technical standpoint.

From what I understand from odalv and gmax is that these SC's can be private communities which would be using scBTC and we would never know it.  Certainly it seems like that way through the federated peg model. Remember these SC's are designed to fiction without having to have the Bitcoin network monitor them. The only thing that needs to be presented at the time of reentry into the Bitcoin network is a valid proof. In the meantime, maybe years, certainly the Bitcoin network has no idea what's going on with SC's and the scBTC involved so how would you?

Yes you may not be able to see what is happening off the main chain. (In the case of a zerocoin sidechain that would be the whole point BTW)

But my understanding is you would be able to see that the coins were moved to a sidechain and that is all you need for a global view. i.e. Bitcoin's main chain has 18M coins located at these UXTO, 1M coins on sidechain A, 1M coins on sidechain B, 1M coins on sidechain C. All 21M are accounted for.

The reason I'm saying that is a complete view is all 21M coins are accounted for visibly. The fact that you may not know what some of them are doing on sidechain B or who has them is not an issue, their existence and location on which chain is still known.

This might just be semantics....
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 08:00:59 PM
 #16150

It's worse because it establishes a precedent, which in some people's minds, like mine, is a conflict of interest. It shows that a group of insiders who do have some control of what's written to the rules of Bitcoin, can go out and establish a for profut company whose business model is dependent on a source code change that they have the influence to push through due to their significant %of the dev team. The establishment of SC's is not necessarily the problem itself.  It would have been much easier  to accept if Blockstream wasnt involved or if the team was broken up into several different companies.  

I generally don't like analogies but it would be like i 40% of the Federal Reserve board decided to establish a for profit company designed to take advantage of their son to be implemented negative interest rate policy. I  suggest you would scream bloody murder and demand they step down at the very least. Blockstream devs refuse to do that either because they are afraid of failure, they truly are conflicted, or they think it doesn't matter. I think it does matter as they could use their positions to possibly block competition.

That makes complete sense, I get the concern.

I guess I think the risk is there with or without Blockstream going first. There will always be moneyed entities lobbying to change things to their benefit. Whether or not sidechains happen will not change that. Just look at DC.

I also think sidechains decrease the level of influence external interests have by providing another outlet to make changes. Take paypal for example, today if paypal wanted to do something they'd have to lobby the core developers and community. With sidechains the community would rightfully respond that no changes are needed because paypal could now just implement a sidechain.

So I see sidechains as reducing the need for moneyed interest to change bitcoin by providing an easier alternative to implement, sidechains become the path of least resistance. And for the community participation is optional (which is a good)


And I completely understand your point that it could stimulate free and open development. I've come off my harder line of objection and can see the light but it HAS to evolve as hypothesized by brg444  here or else were doomed.  There's alot of economic assumptions involved.

What if the market punishes  bitcoin though for allowing the conflict of interest?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 08:05:13 PM
 #16151

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

And again you are simply stating an opinion as if it is fact but not responding to points made before.

The 2-way pegging process merge sidechains into the main chain as a single data structure. At any given time you could look at the bitcoin blockchain and billions of sidechains and see exactly where all 21M coins are in a completely open and transparent manner. That is the definition of a single seamless ledger that preserves the 21M cap and maintains the Sound Money aspect just as today.

It's fine to disagree, but so far you have not presented anything that counters that.

I think your actually wrong here from a technical standpoint.

From what I understand from odalv and gmax is that these SC's can be private communities which would be using scBTC and we would never know it.  Certainly it seems like that way through the federated peg model. Remember these SC's are designed to fiction without having to have the Bitcoin network monitor them. The only thing that needs to be presented at the time of reentry into the Bitcoin network is a valid proof. In the meantime, maybe years, certainly the Bitcoin network has no idea what's going on with SC's and the scBTC involved so how would you?

Yes you may not be able to see what is happening off the main chain. (In the case of a zerocoin sidechain that would be the whole point BTW)

But my understanding is you would be able to see that the coins were moved to a sidechain and that is all you need for a global view. i.e. Bitcoin's main chain has 18M coins located at these UXTO, 1M coins on sidechain A, 1M coins on sidechain B, 1M coins on sidechain C. All 21M are accounted for.

The reason I'm saying that is a complete view is all 21M coins are accounted for visibly. The fact that you may not know what some of them are doing on sidechain B or who has them is not an issue, their existence and location on which chain is still known.

This might just be semantics....

That's a good point.

 You seem to understand Economics. What's your opinion of we lose 50% of all BTC to a SC failure? 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 08:29:56 PM
 #16152

That's a good point.

 You seem to understand Economics. What's your opinion of we lose 50% of all BTC to a SC failure?  

A sidechain that supports 50% of the Bitcoin economy would probably be as extensively reviewed, secured and protected than Bitcoin's own blockchain so it seems to me these type of scenarios are far out there.

I would much rather see such important amount of BTC on a community supported sidechain than on a centralized off-chain scheme ala Mt. Gox.

"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, 08:40:33 PM
 #16153

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

And again you are simply stating an opinion as if it is fact but not responding to points made before.

The 2-way pegging process merge sidechains into the main chain as a single data structure. At any given time you could look at the bitcoin blockchain and billions of sidechains and see exactly where all 21M coins are in a completely open and transparent manner. That is the definition of a single seamless ledger that preserves the 21M cap and maintains the Sound Money aspect just as today.

It's fine to disagree, but so far you have not presented anything that counters that.

I think your actually wrong here from a technical standpoint.

From what I understand from odalv and gmax is that these SC's can be private communities which would be using scBTC and we would never know it.  Certainly it seems like that way through the federated peg model. Remember these SC's are designed to fiction without having to have the Bitcoin network monitor them. The only thing that needs to be presented at the time of reentry into the Bitcoin network is a valid proof. In the meantime, maybe years, certainly the Bitcoin network has no idea what's going on with SC's and the scBTC involved so how would you?

Yes you may not be able to see what is happening off the main chain. (In the case of a zerocoin sidechain that would be the whole point BTW)

But my understanding is you would be able to see that the coins were moved to a sidechain and that is all you need for a global view. i.e. Bitcoin's main chain has 18M coins located at these UXTO, 1M coins on sidechain A, 1M coins on sidechain B, 1M coins on sidechain C. All 21M are accounted for.

The reason I'm saying that is a complete view is all 21M coins are accounted for visibly. The fact that you may not know what some of them are doing on sidechain B or who has them is not an issue, their existence and location on which chain is still known.

This might just be semantics....

That's a good point.

 You seem to understand Economics. What's your opinion of we lose 50% of all BTC to a SC failure?  

Not entirely sure, interesting question. It might have the same effect as if a shipment of gold from the US to Germany was sunk and permanently lost at the bottom of an ocean trench.  It is a complete loss for those involved, but increases the value for the other 50% by removing supply from a fixed stock. Such an event wouldn't have stopped gold being used in 1880, it would have made people more careful with their gold.

So I think this event would make people be much more careful in using sidechains because sidechains introduce another layer of risk. Such an event might actually drive demand away from sidechains and onto the mainchain.


To me the main risk of sidechain ledgers is if a bad sidechain creator tried to artificially inflate the supply. Let's say someone created a centrally managed sidechain, received 1M BTC as 1M scBTC on that sidechain, but then artificially increased the supply of used scBTC on that sidechain to 10M scBTC over time. They could do this because this sidechain is not transparent in structure and no one would notice for a time.

This greatly damages the store of value property.

But only until the attempt was exposed. I think every attempt like this would fail, in the same manner as banks used to fail in runs. Some people would get concerned and transfer back to BTC. But the sidechain only has 1M BTC in reserve for 10M scBTC liabilities. Very quickly the 1M BTC would be exhausted or the convertibility window would close. Both actions would expose the fraud and the remaining 9M scBTC would quickly be priced to their true value (zero).

This is how fixed reserve assets function, they don't prevent fraud, they just force it to eventually come to public light. (The problem for fiat today is there is no forcing function).
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 08:48:06 PM
 #16154

Let's say someone created a centrally managed sidechain, received 1M BTC as 1M scBTC on that sidechain, but then artificially increased the supply of used scBTC on that sidechain to 10M scBTC over time.

Someone would need to come up with one hell of an explanation to incite people to transfer 1M BTC to a centralized sidechain.

This doesn't seem to me like a scenario that sidechains introduce. On the contrary, now that they introduce the opportunity for any one to set up decentralized platforms, proponents of a centralized scheme would be hard pressed to explain their reasoning behind the creation of a centralized structure on top of a natively decentralized sidechain.

"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
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 08:49:21 PM
 #16155

I've been busy for the past week or so. Did I miss anything?

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 08:49:28 PM
 #16156

And I completely understand your point that it could stimulate free and open development. I've come off my harder line of objection and can see the light but it HAS to evolve as hypothesized by brg444  here or else were doomed.  There's alot of economic assumptions involved.

What if the market punishes  bitcoin though for allowing the conflict of interest?

Hmmm, I'll have to chew on that a bit.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
November 07, 2014, 08:52:49 PM
 #16157

Let's say someone created a centrally managed sidechain, received 1M BTC as 1M scBTC on that sidechain, but then artificially increased the supply of used scBTC on that sidechain to 10M scBTC over time.

Someone would need to come up with one hell of an explanation to incite people to transfer 1M BTC to a centralized sidechain.

This doesn't seem to me like a scenario that sidechains introduce. On the contrary, now that they introduce the opportunity for any one to set up decentralized platforms, proponents of a centralized scheme would be hard pressed to explain their reasoning behind the creation of a centralized structure on top of a natively decentralized sidechain.

Completely agree it is not a realistic example.

It was just a statement that even in the worse case scenario the economic cap would still function, to say that sidechains ledgers don't change the reserve asset quality of bitcoin cap.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 09:00:06 PM
 #16158

I've been busy for the past week or so. Did I miss anything?

Lol over a 100 200 pages,  and a few  unsubstantiated and substantiated accusations.
And a conclusion that it would be wise to considered SideChains could come with some risks.  Cheesy

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 09:05:23 PM
 #16159

I've been busy for the past week or so. Did I miss anything?

Lol over a 100 200 pages,  and a few  unsubstantiated and substantiated accusations.

Well, I've read every post of this thread (and the one before it) except for the last few days, so I suppose I have some reading to do tonight.


And a conclusion that it would be wise to considered SideChains could come with some risks.  Cheesy

Isn't that obvious?




Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 07, 2014, 09:11:40 PM
 #16160

rocks, I also disagree with your characterization of Mc plus SC's as one seamless ledger in which 21M coins float with sov. If that were the case,  why all the fuss and need to firewall them off?

In theory they are buy no one knows for sure in reality.

And again you are simply stating an opinion as if it is fact but not responding to points made before.

The 2-way pegging process merge sidechains into the main chain as a single data structure. At any given time you could look at the bitcoin blockchain and billions of sidechains and see exactly where all 21M coins are in a completely open and transparent manner. That is the definition of a single seamless ledger that preserves the 21M cap and maintains the Sound Money aspect just as today.

It's fine to disagree, but so far you have not presented anything that counters that.

I think your actually wrong here from a technical standpoint.

From what I understand from odalv and gmax is that these SC's can be private communities which would be using scBTC and we would never know it.  Certainly it seems like that way through the federated peg model. Remember these SC's are designed to fiction without having to have the Bitcoin network monitor them. The only thing that needs to be presented at the time of reentry into the Bitcoin network is a valid proof. In the meantime, maybe years, certainly the Bitcoin network has no idea what's going on with SC's and the scBTC involved so how would you?

Yes you may not be able to see what is happening off the main chain. (In the case of a zerocoin sidechain that would be the whole point BTW)

But my understanding is you would be able to see that the coins were moved to a sidechain and that is all you need for a global view. i.e. Bitcoin's main chain has 18M coins located at these UXTO, 1M coins on sidechain A, 1M coins on sidechain B, 1M coins on sidechain C. All 21M are accounted for.

The reason I'm saying that is a complete view is all 21M coins are accounted for visibly. The fact that you may not know what some of them are doing on sidechain B or who has them is not an issue, their existence and location on which chain is still known.

This might just be semantics....

actually, i need to re-address your answer here.

the fact that you view SC's in this manner, ie, it doesn't matter what's happening on the SC's as all that's important is the Bitcoin blockchain and its UTXO set, then doesn't that support NL's and my argument that these SC's ledgers are, in fact, different than Bitcoins blockchain?  so different that they could range from complete scams with centralization and no MM  all the way to complete legit SC's that are 100% MM and no sidecoins?  if you buy that then SC's are in fact NOT extensions of the Bitcoin blockchain and are NOT the same ledger.  they are just some amorphous bunch of ledgers/blockchains for anything from complete speculation to complete legitimacy.  and then in that same sense, do you not understand my concern of breaking the link btwn BTC the currency, from BTC the blockchain?
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 ... 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!