Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:28:49 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804194 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 10:52:24 AM
 #16341

That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post.

In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins?

No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed.

But not long term greed if it would destroy btc. Also mm leave a coin open to attack like when Luke Jr. killed Coiledcoin. So the coin could be killed in the early days due to a 51%.

First off you can expect all the current unprofitable miners to defect to Truthcoin to speculate on success and as early adopters. Add to that those willing to MM. So there's that danger.

But I agree it is susceptible to attack. But then so are these utility SC's without an altcoin being touted for the use of faster tx or anonymity. In that case, why sidechain at all?
1480861729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861729
Reply with quote  #2

1480861729
Report to moderator
1480861729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861729
Reply with quote  #2

1480861729
Report to moderator
1480861729
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861729

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861729
Reply with quote  #2

1480861729
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 11:01:18 AM
 #16342

Oh the other thing about a  luke jr attack is that he'd be destroying fellow Bitcoiners  like yourself so politically it would be harder to do.  At the same time though much more profitable as he could steal scBTC.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 11:37:23 AM
 #16343

That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post.

In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins?

No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed.

But not long term greed if it would destroy btc. Also mm leave a coin open to attack like when Luke Jr. killed Coiledcoin. So the coin could be killed in the early days due to a 51%.

The other reason they might mm or direct mine Truthcoin is out of ignorance. Not everyone has got this figured out you know. Just look at the disagreements we"re having here on what's happening. 
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 12:55:32 PM
 #16344

Anyway, when the bitcoin address is created, the unlocking code (the secret key) has to be created by a single machine with a single owner before it is hidden or split and distributed. So the question is: Is it possible to do this and at the same time prove that the original unlocking code (the secret key) is not known by anyone? Is it possible to prove that a secret exists, and that secret can be revealed, but the secret is not known by anyone?

I'm not a crypto expert, but I think this can be done and no: the private key doesn't need to be constructed on a single machine. I think its possible to generate n public/private key pairs pub_i/priv_i (i 1..n) and then use some operation on the public keys to produce pub_aggragated the matching private key of which (priv_aggregated) can in the future be constructed exactly if all individual priv_i keys are known.


You are possibly right, but even so, the group of n will be in possession, not the current sidecoin holder.

 
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 01:01:44 PM
 #16345

Lol'ed at your tl;dr

Let's assume the 20 page maths proof proves it can be done. Now is it a good idea to change the Bitcoin protocol to make this happen, what are the risks if any.

I see a few long-term outcomes:
First is Bitcoin is largely safe so long as there is a high block reward.
Competition for transaction fees on other chains  will come at the cost of security leaving the higher cost networks vulnerable to attack.
Unless we see growth outside the Bitcoin network, this would be like monetary inflation, as high value SC networks grow sucking up Bitcoin. (Also environmental impact of mining could be an issue if a dogecoin type scenario attracts BTC.)

The above assumes that SC don't have a corruption failure where BTC becomes "decapitated", or or malfeasance where Bitcoin takes the blame for a protocol error instead of say an entity like MtGox.

Other than the above SC all good.

I had to go back to the paper to assess the volume offline math, and I find far less than 20 pages of math. To be honest, I find the paper to describe history, some vision, using bad terms, bad economics. Basically, it could be written by the tailors in the story about the low confidence emperor and his new habit. What I found somewhat useful, is the idea of the atomic swap. You might think I am arrogant by saying this, but according to my mom I am quite bright, and I could easily understand the brilliance of the bitcoin whitepaper, but not this.

FWIW Smiley my Mom also thought I was quite bright. Looking at Odalv post I assume it's possible, I was just reviewing some of the macro economic risks, and trying to understand if SC are a good idea or not, on a technical level it's a notable achievement. In reality I'd rather see some other trust free multisig solutions to the problems SC solve.

To sprinkle some salt in the wounds (since I have not yet been counter-attacked  Smiley ), it reminds me of the early days of computing, where folks thought that anything was possible (we just need to have the data in machine readable form, then we can do magic). The system lacks fundamentals, words are badly defined, imagination is unrestricted... to the moon. It is the general problem solver once again http://ai-su13.artifice.cc/gps.html.

Really, a more specific system has to be described, before it is possible to consider the viability of it. An please, inventors, cut the crap write about the essence.

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding you or we even have opposing views, as far as the essence of the code is conserved I'm not experienced enough to evaluate it, but rather I'd like to asses what are likely outcomes if it's implemented, of concern would be the unfavorable ones. Non the less yes this looks like Pandora's box, and lacking the context for your GPS reference, I'd say to a hammer every problem looks like a nail, and programmers are going to program, and investor...

Still there are many nefarious SC scams that could be used to garner trust or adoption, obviously theses are in my view infinite but if one understand the essence one may be able to avoid them, I just what to know where that leaves me.

We are not in opposition, I have focused lately on the technical viability, I am also skeptical to the economic viability. Mining rewards, or the economics of holding up the system itself, is also not clear, they basically say that they are free to do anything, therefore a solution can be found.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:02:17 PM
 #16346

The economics of pegging, again. With Singapore dollars, which is a successful peg to fiat, there is a reserve bank with sufficient reserves to hold the peg. It is pegged to an unknown basket of neighboring countries' fiat, but that is no fundamental difference. The point is that it is not full reserve. If they run out of reserves, they have to tax their people and destroy some Singapore dollars, which may or may not work (it would interfere with the spoils system). The sidecoin peg is supposed to be guaranteed, which means it has to be full reserve. There has to exist a parked bitcoin for every sidecoin. For Singapore, that does not make sense. The point of having a Singapore dollar, is to exploit the seigniorage that would otherwise go to the country to which their money is pegged. With a national currency, they can take their share of the inflation tax. I suppose you could say that that is fair. If they need to desperately salvage the peg with extra taxes to reduce the money supply, it is because they printed to much, so that can also be considered fair. With bitcoin there is no seigniorage, the cost of producing the money equals the value of the money, and there is no seignor, and therefore noone to push for the sidecoins existance.

The liquidity is the ease with which you can part with your money. In the conversion from sidecoin to bitcoin, even if it is full reserve, there will be some resistance, some has talked about a delay of 2 days. It has to be at least the sum of the confirmation times of each chain. Therefore the sidecoins will have some less liquidity (it goes both ways, but since bitcoin starts out with the best liquidity, it is a problem for the sidecoin). The result is that the sidecoin usage can reach some level due to added functionality, but the lower liquidity, which should normally give it a lower value, will, with the pegging presumption, give it a lower usage. Some sidecoins will exist because they are practical, but they will not take off.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:23:59 PM
 #16347

10 USD jump, just after my sidechain thrashing, now I know how it feels to be Haruhiko Kuroda.
 Smiley
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:25:24 PM
 #16348

Érdogan, for purposes of discussion, "sidecoin"  should mean altcoin produced de novo by SC. scBTC should mean what's created from BTC via the 2wp.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:29:31 PM
 #16349

10 USD jump, just after my sidechain thrashing, now I know how it feels to be Haruhiko Kuroda.
 Smiley

That's because you haven't been assigned a shadow defender. You're wide open to shoot the 3's. Wink
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:30:24 PM
 #16350

Érdogan, for purposes of discussion, "sidecoin"  should mean altcoin produced de novo by SC. scBTC should mean what's created from BTC via the 2wp.

I don't agree. Those words are not in the paper, and a coin that is not backed by a bitcoin can not be a part of the peg, and is totally uninteresting.

Edit: The sidechain inventors did not use the word sidecoin, because in their imagination, it is a bitcoin that moves around in the sidechain, which is wrong. The invention of scBTC was from the foggy mind of brg444, I believe.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 09, 2014, 02:32:39 PM
 #16351

https://twitter.com/JustusRanvier/status/531454134357356544
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:37:24 PM
 #16352

Well, here we go already. The concept of paper bitcoin is ramping up already;

http://jackcliu.com/post/102166140017/bitcoin-backed-corporate-currencies-are-coming
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:39:45 PM
 #16353

Érdogan, for purposes of discussion, "sidecoin"  should mean altcoin produced de novo by SC. scBTC should mean what's created from BTC via the 2wp.

I don't agree. Those words are not in the paper, and a coin that is not backed by a bitcoin can not be a part of the peg, and is totally uninteresting.

Edit: The sidechain inventors did not use the word sidecoin, because in their imagination, it is a bitcoin that moves around in the sidechain, which is wrong. The invention of scBTC was from the foggy mind of brg444, I believe.


Correct but that is how brg444 and i, and I hope everyone else, has been using the terms for the last 200 pages. We have to standardize our language.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:42:34 PM
 #16354


Beat me to it!

You gotta just say it like it is, this will be the equivalent of paper bitcoin.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:46:30 PM
 #16355

Érdogan, for purposes of discussion, "sidecoin"  should mean altcoin produced de novo by SC. scBTC should mean what's created from BTC via the 2wp.

I don't agree. Those words are not in the paper, and a coin that is not backed by a bitcoin can not be a part of the peg, and is totally uninteresting.

Edit: The sidechain inventors did not use the word sidecoin, because in their imagination, it is a bitcoin that moves around in the sidechain, which is wrong. The invention of scBTC was from the foggy mind of brg444, I believe.


Correct but that is how brg444 and i, and I hope everyone else, has been using the terms for the last 200 pages. We have to standardize our language.

Fair point. I will have to reconsider, and maybe specify, more often, what my words are intended to mean.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 02:50:32 PM
 #16356

Altcoin devs, corporations, gift card issuers, reward point schemes, banks, gvts are rummaging around their kitchens right now in glee  trying to find the biggest straw they can which they plan to jam through the 2wp and suck through  as hard as they can.

Truthcoin if you want the truth, dammit!


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 03:11:03 PM
 #16357

I still don't understand why the core devs would be interested in sidechains. What were they thinking really?

SC's are as much a political move as they are a misconceived attempt to improve the system.

As much as brg444 tried to deny that this isn't an attempt to kill altcoins, it is a fact as I and Melbustus documented.

Political moves designed to eliminate competition by changing the rules (which are what  source code changes to benefit your own for profit company are), as we well know from history, often have the exact  opposite affect from what is intended.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 03:31:04 PM
 #16358

half-jokingly: oh! I think I got why cypher and other seem to be opposed to sidechains: they can be viewed a bit like rehypthecation of assets, like paper gold!

Yes. See Jack Liu and Truthcoin if you want the truth, dammit.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 03:51:04 PM
 #16359

The grownups are happy, because their share of the cake is worth more.

this part isn't even necessarily right.

if your own kids were the ones who ate some bad cake and ended up dying, are you necessarily happier or better off as a result of it?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 09, 2014, 04:00:22 PM
 #16360

The grownups are happy, because their share of the cake is worth more.

this part isn't even necessarily right.

if your own kids were the ones who ate some bad cake and ended up dying, are you necessarily happier or better off as a result of it?

actually, let me sharpen that a bit:

if your own kids were the ones who ate some bad cake and ended up dying, are you necessarily happier or better off simply b/c you no longer have to give them their inheritance?

edit:  no answers from the twisted f*cks.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!