Bitcoin Forum
July 07, 2020, 04:27:48 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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] 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2030619 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2014, 12:55:10 AM
 #16221


If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
1594096068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594096068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594096068
Reply with quote  #2

1594096068
Report to moderator
1594096068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594096068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594096068
Reply with quote  #2

1594096068
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1594096068
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594096068

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594096068
Reply with quote  #2

1594096068
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 01:05:24 AM
Last edit: November 08, 2014, 01:23:36 AM by rocks
 #16222

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services.

Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 and the main thread work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 01:08:38 AM
 #16223


If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

That's a great way to put it.

It also means the problem already exists today. What is different between coinbase failing and a sidechain failing. I'd propose very little.

When MtGox failed, a lot of the press said Bitcoin was hacked even though we know that wasn't the case. A SC failing will be very similar.

It's not that it isn't a problem, it's that it isn't a NEW problem.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 01:22:44 AM
 #16224

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

I can always blame Bitcoin companies/service, but how do you hold a decentralized P2P MM SC responsible, when you are entrusting your coins to a decentralized protocol run on p2p network, not a Bitcoin companies/service, in this scenario SC failure is a Bitcoin Failure. if you are introducing billions of these SC, companies will try to reduce liability by issuing a SC MM independent prototypical - "they dont make mistakes it was a fault of the protocol", the risk of failure grows exponentially as more SC come on board.  Alts are not a treat anyway, the goal is may the best money win, and bitcoin is such a quantum jump from what we had, Alts are an incremental improvement.  

If there are billions of these SC as you say, the vast majority will be so small that the failure of any one would hardly even be noticed. Today there are tons of bitcoin website services and lots of them have gone down/disappeared/etc. Most were so small they were not noticed (I'm speaking to you betsofbitco.in)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 01:24:21 AM
 #16225

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services.

Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary.

I still see the main chain as the master chain being Bitcoin blockchain, and the side chain as being pegged and validated. even though the side chain is criptograficaly pegged so the 2 chains can be reconciled they are separate chains running on separate servers in separate locations a single merged ledger as you put it will never exist, it can only be constructed through a reconciliation proses.

the inconsistency i found funny was actual the claim that "These are separate threads".

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 09:10:18 AM
 #16226

Five-fold increase of 'My Wallet Transaction Volume' within 3 month! How this?

https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-transaction-volume?timespan=180days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=7&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2014, 10:27:25 AM
 #16227


If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

I share the hope but not the expectation.
When speaking with someone about Bitcoin and they have only been involved since maybe 6 months or so (started after all the gox events), and they say that they have some bitcoin, and then during the discussion you learn that their bitcoin are in their Coinbase account, or their LocalBitcoin account....

Do you then tell them that they are wrong and do not have any bitcoin?
How likely are they to believe you if you tell them this?

There are a lot of these people.
Most people think that the dollars they have in their deposit account at bank are theirs and not the banks too, and won't be convinced otherwise without a lot of work.
...and that they own gold if they have some GLD.

That's a great way to put it.

It also means the problem already exists today. What is different between coinbase failing and a sidechain failing. I'd propose very little.

When MtGox failed, a lot of the press said Bitcoin was hacked even though we know that wasn't the case. A SC failing will be very similar.

It's not that it isn't a problem, it's that it isn't a NEW problem.

Well... Bitcoin was actually hacked (malliated transactions), but that wasn't what caused (most of) mtgox's problems, it was just used as convenient cover for the other problems.  MK compounded the news confusion by blaming it and maybe bought a few more days, so MK should get the blame on that newsfusion more so than the news that reported it.

I don't know if it is a new problem or not, but the explanations and creation of understandings in the minds of the broader public may be made more difficult by the "one ledger only" notions.  EmptyGox very clearly had its own ledger which at some point became irreconcilable with the Bitcoin block chain.  If it were a side chain company that had monkeyed with its code to do these shenanigans, it would possibly been more noticeable (if it were being openly mined by folks that examine source changes), but if they managed to keep it hidden, or were privately mining (like Ripple?) it may also be more difficult to explain to the "one ledger only" believers how this is possible.

In the earlier example where scBTC1 failed and scBTC2 became an altcoin, at some point in this process there are very clearly (at least) two separate ledgers.  
I would suggest that at the inception of each of the side chain's block chain, there and then emerges a new ledger, which are each potentially merge-able.  Others might suggest some other time.  Maybe at one of the many changes that resulted in the failure of scBTC1, or maybe after it fails, or maybe never and the scBTC2 altcoin and Bitcoin are still just one ledger.  In that case, when the ledger of scBTC1 failed, some might get confused and say the Bitcoin ledger failed.  (Since they have been told that there is only one ledger, and something failed, so it must be that.)

It seems simpler and more sensible to me to consider each side chain its own potentially merge-able ledger.  It is hard enough to try to explain how a ledger is merged with "something" when there is only one ledger in the first place, with what then is it merged?

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 12:50:25 PM
 #16228

we've been told that one of the benefits of SC's is in crushing altcoins.  if the current network effects are already doing that, and i agree that they are, that takes away a major argument to implement them.

NL's point is that this severing of the path back to BTC will create losers and thus destroy confidence, not only for the loser's themselves, but for the rest of us potentially.

 Cheesy

please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins. neither is it a "major" argument to implement them. the reasoning is that once implemented it should discourage the creation of alt-scams and refocus the energy of developers on innovation within Bitcoin's ecosystem.

lol, i guess i'm hearing things.

I agree 100% with brg444. SC is not AltCoin. SC is new feature/service over Bitcoin.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 01:01:48 PM
 #16229

Confusion between "did Bitcoin fail me and lose my coins or did a Sidecoin fail me and lose my coins" is a very legitimate issue. I'm worried about this also.

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain. For example today if one wants to anonymize coins they need to go use some sort of mixing service, if they lose their coins in the process the service takes the blame though, not bitcoin. I think sidechains will be the same, people have bitcoins and then decided to use some anonymous sidechain service, if they lose their coins I think it will be clear it was the sidechain / service at fault.

If a sidechain is integrated into Bitcoin-qt or blockchain.info to the extent that you're not even aware of the sidechain being used, then I can see the scenario you're describing as being confusing and damaging to Bitcoin. But I think SC's will be implemented in a manner that it is clear when they are being used.

At least that is my expectation / hope.

Sidechains are like Bitcoin companies/services. If you decide to trust some shady one because it promises unconvential returns or features then you expose yourself to the underlying risk that they disappear with your money.

When we get to "ordinary people" using Bitcoin, established sidechains that have been carefully reviewed and vetted by the community will be available and should serve any conventional need that a consumer might want. My guess is that at this point they are not even referred to as "sidechains" but Bitcoin "applications" or services.

If one decides to step outside of this "safe" environment and experience more obscure services/sidechains then he should proceed with caution much like he should be doing when dealing with less renowned companies.

Odalv, you need to bring us some imagination!

Company can create new asset. -> Company shares. -> This is new AltCoin(Shares) where company is only miner. Company MUST comply with law. 1 AltCoin = 1 Share.

You can trade Bitcon:Share on decentralized exchange but you must comply KYC/AML.  Shares cannot be swapped anonymously. SEC will control swaps. => Company (miner of blockchain) will not allow transfer to new pKey (if you do not deliver KYC/AML).
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 02:08:41 PM
Last edit: November 08, 2014, 02:43:51 PM by Odalv
 #16230

You can also create SilkRoad 3.0 SC.

Edit:
Web site will be only used to keep offers. (it will not hold pKyes).
This SC can use Cryptonote 2.0 protocol(as Monero uses) and decentralized miners will provide 2wp.

Edit2:
Architecture

<bitcoin>
  <crypto-noteSC> - decentralized network  btc <-1:1 2wp-> scBTC
         <scBTC - asset>
         <scDrug - asset>
        <silkRoadSC-1 /> - hidden centralized server -1 same as Merger
        <silkRoadSC-2 /> - new hidden centralized server if #1 fails
   </crypto-noteSC>
</bitcoin>
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 02:15:18 PM
 #16231

SCs should trade value for convenience or utility. If an SC asset or the market cap of an SC asset decouples with the pegged bitcoins value, then it becomes more speculative than useful.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 03:51:02 PM
 #16232

You can also create SilkRoad 3.0 SC.

Edit:
Web site will be only used to keep offers. (it will not hold pKyes).
This SC can use Cryptonote 2.0 protocol(as Monero uses) and decentralized miners will provide 2wp.

Edit2:
Architecture

<bitcoin>
  <crypto-noteSC> - decentralized network  btc <-1:1 2wp-> scBTC
         <scBTC - asset>
         <scDrug - asset>
        <silkRoadSC-1 /> - hidden centralized server -1 same as Merger
        <silkRoadSC-2 /> - new hidden centralized server if #1 fails
   </crypto-noteSC>
</bitcoin>

i just love your imagination!  so refreshing.

great example of what will happen with SC's.  in fact, you're gonna do it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 03:51:53 PM
Last edit: November 08, 2014, 04:15:43 PM by cypherdoc
 #16233

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services.

Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 and the main thread work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary.

it's my turn to call you out.

these 2 views of yours are contradictory and were made out of convenience to the discussion at hand.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 03:53:20 PM
 #16234

look everyone!  a Free Lunch! Cashcoin!



 Grin

looks legit, would invest +1

the point is, there are plenty of ppl who will. Smiley

A fool and his money.... yeah you know the rest

talk about backpedaling.

so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 04:03:49 PM
 #16235

we've been told that one of the benefits of SC's is in crushing altcoins.  if the current network effects are already doing that, and i agree that they are, that takes away a major argument to implement them.

NL's point is that this severing of the path back to BTC will create losers and thus destroy confidence, not only for the loser's themselves, but for the rest of us potentially.

 Cheesy

please don't be so shallow. SC's were absolutely not created in order to "crush" altcoins. neither is it a "major" argument to implement them. the reasoning is that once implemented it should discourage the creation of alt-scams and refocus the energy of developers on innovation within Bitcoin's ecosystem.

lol, i guess i'm hearing things.

I agree 100% with brg444. SC is not AltCoin. SC is new feature/service over Bitcoin.

hey, you forgot about Truthcoin!  Cashcoin!  whateva.

you're not the only one with imagination.  just look how this entrepreneuring young man has seen the opportunity in SC's for him to logarithmically increase his advertising claims in what he sees as the next great opportunity for altcoins.  for just one Truthcoin, you can enable all the features of Ethereum, Bitshares, Counterparty, NXT, Dogecoin, uh, i'm exhausted... did i forget any?

looks like it can give you everything you can possibly want:


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 04:08:23 PM
 #16236

SCs should trade value for convenience or utility. If an SC asset or the market cap of an SC asset decouples with the pegged bitcoins value, then it becomes more speculative than useful.

and speculation NEVER happens in Bitcoin, right?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 04:35:37 PM
 #16237

"Imagination" being the operative word here.  see, even this simpleton gets it:

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2014, 04:42:28 PM
 #16238

"Imagination" being the operative word here.  see, even this simpleton gets it:



FREE LUNCH, someone must alert Dorian!

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 04:53:21 PM
 #16239

The sidechain ledgers are merged into the bitcoin ledger through the 2-way pegging process, which creates a single merged ledger. Merged means one ledger

I think a lot of side chains will be seen as services beyond the main chain.

These are consistent statements. There is a single ledger of separate services.

Also, in your example, how does 1:1 convertibility between sidethread 1.0 and 2.0 work, because without that they are alt threads and are thus inflationary.

I still see the main chain as the master chain being Bitcoin blockchain, and the side chain as being pegged and validated. even though the side chain is criptograficaly pegged so the 2 chains can be reconciled they are separate chains running on separate servers in separate locations a single merged ledger as you put it will never exist, it can only be constructed through a reconciliation proses.

the inconsistency i found funny was actual the claim that "These are separate threads".

Rocks I'll retract my not so funny thread of inconsistency, but why I don't see the ledgers as one and separate is each SC has it's own incentive structure to secure it. While it's convenient to think of them as the same this change in incentives could be a race to the bottom in incentivizing security as others referenced here have pointed out.

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

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 05:31:29 PM
 #16240

talk about backpedaling.

so now your argument is no longer that this will not happen but instead that fools will be fools, which was my point all along.

You really shouldn't talk about backpedaling, this is really all you've been doing for the last 100 pages.

My argument was never that schemes like this wouldn't happen. In fact, please dig up ONE post where I say so. I'll wait

Of course, and this actually support my point.

We are going to see MtGoxCHAIN, MoohlahCHAIN *truthcoinCHAIN* but eventually CoinbaseCHAIN, CircleCHAIN or BitstampCHAIN are going to be established and these are the ones "ordinary people" are going to use

"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 ... 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] 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 ... 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!