Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 01:16:18 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 ... 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] 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013790 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 07:48:03 PM
 #16261

Answer this,  what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario?

What kind of question is this? "What ledger with integrity"?

"What ledger with integrity allows 800,000 of its coin to be lost to Mt.Gox"

The ledger is neutral. Its users decide on the integrity of its use. If they decide to confer some of the main ledger's unit to a corrupted subchain then they are responsible for the ensuing risks. At the end of the day the main ledger is not affected by the failure of one of its sub ledger.

A ledger that allows those gox coins  to simply change hands to those of the attacker,  not one where the coins vaporize.

The mechanism by which the sub-ledger is corrupted changes nothing to the argument.



Sure it does. The derivative SC's will enable a new type of hack or attack we've never heard of or seen before in Bitcoin. Maybe we can call it the "decapitation attack".

and to that I answer

The risk is the same : to trust your money elsewhere than on the blockchain. The schemes to deceive people into doing so might increase in numbers with sidechain but the risk is the same.

As for your second comment, I'm sorry but they absolutely should understand it. It is the very principle of Bitcoin : creating a trustless environment. It took a long time for Bitcoin to establish this status and it should be obvious that any step outside of its circle exposes you to risk that should be accounted for.

Also, I have some difficulty with your proposition that "ordinary people" will be trusting their money to all kind of obscure sidechains. Ordinary people only trust mainstream and established platforms. It is very unlikely the majority of them will fall victim to overlycomplicated schemes.

"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
1511529378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511529378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511529378
Reply with quote  #2

1511529378
Report to moderator
1511529378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511529378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511529378
Reply with quote  #2

1511529378
Report to moderator
1511529378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511529378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511529378
Reply with quote  #2

1511529378
Report to moderator
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.
1511529378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511529378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511529378
Reply with quote  #2

1511529378
Report to moderator
1511529378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511529378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511529378
Reply with quote  #2

1511529378
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 07:53:52 PM
 #16262

Hey, I'm having fun here. I  enjoy listening to all your ad hominems.

And the only thing I don't care about is my reputation as I don't have anyoneiI need to please except myself knowing that I have no conflict of interest and my motives are pure in simply trying to protect Bitcoin. I honestly doubt you can say the same thing.

 Roll Eyes

I sincerely believe that. I can't explain your actions any other way.

Like i said, you're like my shadow defender trying to deny me the ball at every step.

My actions are the result of the witch hunt crusade you have entertained the very moment sidechains were announced. I do not tolerate disinformation and fear mongering and you will see me call you out on it everytime.




Ooh, now we're talking about witch hunts.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 08:48:55 PM
 #16263

Answer this,  what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario?

What kind of question is this? "What ledger with integrity"?

"What ledger with integrity allows 800,000 of its coin to be lost to Mt.Gox"

The ledger is neutral. Its users decide on the integrity of its use. If they decide to confer some of the main ledger's unit to a corrupted subchain then they are responsible for the ensuing risks. At the end of the day the main ledger is not affected by the failure of one of its sub ledger.

A ledger that allows those gox coins  to simply change hands to those of the attacker,  not one where the coins vaporize.

The mechanism by which the sub-ledger is corrupted changes nothing to the argument.



Sure it does. The derivative SC's will enable a new type of hack or attack we've never heard of or seen before in Bitcoin. Maybe we can call it the "decapitation attack".

and to that I answer

The risk is the same : to trust your money elsewhere than on the blockchain. The schemes to deceive people into doing so might increase in numbers with sidechain but the risk is the same.

As for your second comment, I'm sorry but they absolutely should understand it. It is the very principle of Bitcoin : creating a trustless environment. It took a long time for Bitcoin to establish this status and it should be obvious that any step outside of its circle exposes you to risk that should be accounted for.

Also, I have some difficulty with your proposition that "ordinary people" will be trusting their money to all kind of obscure sidechains. Ordinary people only trust mainstream and established platforms. It is very unlikely the majority of them will fall victim to overlycomplicated schemes.

so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.

and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 08:51:11 PM
 #16264

so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.

and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.

yes they are different ledger deriving their monetary unit from one main ledger. their ledger are effectively sub ledgers within the main ledger. is there something you don't understand in there?

what does this have to do with malicious schemes causing people to lose money anyway?

"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 08, 2014, 09:06:23 PM
 #16265

so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.

and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.

yes they are different ledger deriving their monetary unit from one main ledger. their ledger are effectively sub ledgers within the main ledger. is there something you don't understand in there?

what does this have to do with malicious schemes causing people to lose money anyway?

ok, let me ask you again.  this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 09:12:51 PM
 #16266

ok, let me ask you again.  this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?

Playing with words is not helping your argument.

"Cut off" or "lost" is the same thing really so the Mt Gox analogy still applies. Also, in Mt.Gox's case, the ledger does not know whether the coins are lost or owned by a malicious owner.

"Part of itself" = the units. Whether the sub ledger containing these units is centralized or decentralized makes no difference.

"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 08, 2014, 09:24:22 PM
 #16267

ok, let me ask you again.  this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?

Playing with words is not helping your argument.

"Cut off" or "lost" is the same thing really so the Mt Gox analogy still applies. Also, in Mt.Gox's case, the ledger does not know whether the coins are lost or owned by a malicious owner.

"Part of itself" = the units. Whether the sub ledger containing these units is centralized or decentralized makes no difference.

trying to obfuscate by using the term "subledger" is playing with words.  SC's are different ledgers with different security and economic assumptions and offerings.  we've already agreed on this.  you just forgot.

the gox analogy is not good b/c it involves a SC1 once removed from Bitcoin.  in NL's example, he was talking about SC's/ledgers twice removed or more getting "decapitated" by SC1 malfeasance.  we've never seen anything like that in Bitcoin; ever.  it's a new risk.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2014, 09:38:16 PM
 #16268

  it's a new risk.

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 09:39:03 PM
 #16269

ok, let me ask you again.  this time answer.

what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?

Playing with words is not helping your argument.

"Cut off" or "lost" is the same thing really so the Mt Gox analogy still applies. Also, in Mt.Gox's case, the ledger does not know whether the coins are lost or owned by a malicious owner.

"Part of itself" = the units. Whether the sub ledger containing these units is centralized or decentralized makes no difference.

trying to obfuscate by using the term "subledger" is playing with words.  SC's are different ledgers with different security and economic assumptions and offerings.  we've already agreed on this.  you just forgot.

the gox analogy is not good b/c it involves a SC1 once removed from Bitcoin.  in NL's example, he was talking about SC's/ledgers twice removed or more getting "decapitated" by SC1 malfeasance.  we've never seen anything like that in Bitcoin; ever.  it's a new risk.

No subledger is IMO a very appropriate term. SC's ledger being supported by monetary units derived from the main chain, it is only right to call them subledgers and not primary ledgers on their own right.

In NL's example, the risk is inherant to the corruption of SC1, so it does not matter if the coin is now on SC2-3-4-5. If these sit on top of SC1 then the root of the risk is on SC1, therefore, as I continue to try to explain to you, the risk is always reside in moving your coin off the mainchain to a malicious or corrupted subledger.

Coins stuck on SC2 or SC1 affect the user and Bitcoin in the same way so it is not a "new" risk to either of them


"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 08, 2014, 09:47:34 PM
 #16270


lol
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2014, 09:50:39 PM
 #16271

We can add a little more complexity.  Maybe this will help...

 MC
 |   \
SC1 SC3
 |   /
SC2

So now SC2 has coins from MC derived through both SC1 and SC3, but SC1 is a dead chain and will no longer support SPV back to MC (say for sake of discussion that devs can inflate at will and syphon off any that get SPV'd back from SC2 so no one will ever do it).

SC2 is still an active and tradable asset with MC

How many ledgers do we have?
Is this a new risk or is there another way to do this without Side Chains?

(There is a lot more complexity that can be added.)  Some economists would suggest that complexity is itself a risk, so any new "feature" would potentially add this sort of risk in the amount that the new features are useful or powerful.

FWIW, in my model, there are 4 ledgers here, its a new risk, but Side Chains are still a worthwhile innovation... So long as people understand what they are and aren't confused by folks that blindly advocate them as the perfect solution to everything.

It is nuanced.

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 10:06:13 PM
 #16272

We can add a little more complexity.  Maybe this will help...

 MC
 |   \
SC1 SC3
 |   /
SC2

So now SC2 has coins from MC derived through both SC1 and SC3, but SC1 is a dead chain and will no longer support SPV back to MC (say for sake of discussion that devs can inflate at will and syphon off any that get SPV'd back from SC2 so no one will ever do it).

SC2 is still an active and tradable asset with MC

How many ledgers do we have?
Is this a new risk or is there another way to do this without Side Chains?

(There is a lot more complexity that can be added.)  Some economists would suggest that complexity is itself a risk, so any new "feature" would potentially add this sort of risk in the amount that the new features are useful or powerful.

Of course I understand all of your proposed scenario. My argument is the risk resides in leaving MC. When that decision is taken then yes complexity can be added through the use of sidechains. The risk is not new, the scheme is.

If you want to prove me wrong then please explain how it would be more damageable to the user and/or Bitcoin if the coins are lost through an elaborated sidechain scheme than on a convential off-chain platform (MtGox style)

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 10:20:41 PM
 #16273

I guess you guys' point is that sidechains could eventually create a propensity for coins to move off the mainchain and that this in itself is an increase in risk... While I believe the concern to be fair, my opinion is this is inevitable, sidechain or not.

The choice we are presented with is whether we'd like for this to happen on more centralized, 3rd party controlled platforms or through the use of more decentralized, well designed and properly implemented sidechains.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
ssmc2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 10:23:46 PM
 #16274

Hi guys, I was told there was gold talk in this thread?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 10:26:09 PM
 #16275

Hi guys, I was told there was gold talk in this thread?

wrong door, this is now Sidechain UP. Bitcoin down  Cheesy


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 10:43:33 PM
 #16276

If you want to prove me wrong then please explain how it would be more damageable to the user and/or Bitcoin if the coins are lost through an elaborated sidechain scheme than on a convential off-chain platform (MtGox style)

Perhaps because that risk is simply better understood, or at least, easier to understand. With a complex web of interconnected side chains it is conceivable you may have a system that no one understands.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 08, 2014, 11:00:42 PM
 #16277

If you want to prove me wrong then please explain how it would be more damageable to the user and/or Bitcoin if the coins are lost through an elaborated sidechain scheme than on a convential off-chain platform (MtGox style)

Perhaps because that risk is simply better understood, or at least, easier to understand. With a complex web of interconnected side chains it is conceivable you may have a system that no one understands.



Fair point.

But again, what exactly is the need for such "complex web of interconnected side chains"?

Sure enough I can envision this happening in the future but if it does happen then it,s because they are needed to support certain services. If a need for these services exist then is the alternative that we should expect "complex web of interconnected off-chain platforms" not true as well?

"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 08, 2014, 11:03:27 PM
 #16278

If you want to prove me wrong then please explain how it would be more damageable to the user and/or Bitcoin if the coins are lost through an elaborated sidechain scheme than on a convential off-chain platform (MtGox style)

Perhaps because that risk is simply better understood, or at least, easier to understand. With a complex web of interconnected side chains it is conceivable you may have a system that no one understands.



Or as Adrian has said, at least with gox MK is being held responsible, a result of him being identifiable. With a SC you might not know who to blame. In fact, Bitcoin itself may be blamed.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
November 08, 2014, 11:03:43 PM
 #16279

But again, what exactly is the need for such "complex web of interconnected side chains"?

Maybe none at all, but that doesn't mean people won't build it. Perhaps they will individually see a myopic need for their own little piece even though globally there is no real need. I would describe nearly the entirety if not the entirety of HFT and flash crashes in that manner.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 08, 2014, 11:15:27 PM
 #16280

I guess you guys' point is that sidechains could eventually create a propensity for coins to move off the mainchain and that this in itself is an increase in risk... While I believe the concern to be fair, my opinion is this is inevitable, sidechain or not.

The choice we are presented with is whether we'd like for this to happen on more centralized, 3rd party controlled platforms or through the use of more decentralized, well designed and properly implemented sidechains.

It provides a new another way to lose coins to tradability.  Dead coins, burned.  With alts you just lose wealth, no one else is affected by that.  When SC1 ends, coins are lost.

I don't need you to be wrong about anything, it isn't my goal to win an argument.  Counterparty did this too, and I burned bitcoin for that too knowingly.

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 ... 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!