Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:35:25 AM *
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 ... 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] 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803425 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 07:31:09 AM
 #16461


 - Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's  for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's


I assume you mean Austin Hill will not "enable" gvts to start fiat-SC's

Cypher doesn't realise that altcoins exist already. Don't spoil the surprise.

Yes, this is what I wanted to explain
1480732525
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732525

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732525
Reply with quote  #2

1480732525
Report to moderator
1480732525
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732525

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732525
Reply with quote  #2

1480732525
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480732525
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732525

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732525
Reply with quote  #2

1480732525
Report to moderator
1480732525
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480732525

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480732525
Reply with quote  #2

1480732525
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 07:34:35 AM
 #16462

lol, (you are mixing pears with apples)
 - fiat-block-chain and fiat-SC over fiat-block-chain is totally different space. It has nothing to do with bitcoin.
 - Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's  for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's

another nonsense about scBTC and BTC used in this thread.
 - you cannot buy BTC on exchange, you can only buy scBTC. Until you withdrawn scBTC into your wallet,  you only have exchangeBTC
 - scBTC outside SC does not have utility of SC. => there will not be  GoxBTC, BitstampBTC, CircleBTC exchanges with variable prices if 2wp works.
 

surely you mean the other way around right?

You have BTC only if you own pKeys in MC.  Otherwise you own only scBTC with or without scBTC pKey.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 07:40:22 AM
 #16463

Yes, this is what I wanted to explain

And that is the correct thinking.

Governments have no interest being someone else's sidechain. If they so wish to create a crypto-national currency they will create an altcoin which they will control the issuance of.

Austin's comment was probably made in speculation that some day government might want to create a national currency using BTC as reserve. In that scenario it would make sense to use a sidechain but frankly Bitcoin's model makes the concept of national currencies irrelevant so I can hardly see how this scheme would be viable in the long run. It sounds to me like a comment made in jest so as to illustrate the possibilities of sidechains and certainly not a plan to put in action.

As if Austin Hill would be consulted in that regard anyway  Cheesy Maybe he's having secret meeting with Gavin at the CIA/NSA  Roll Eyes

"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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 07:41:59 AM
 #16464

lol, (you are mixing pears with apples)
 - fiat-block-chain and fiat-SC over fiat-block-chain is totally different space. It has nothing to do with bitcoin.
 - Austin Hill will not allow gvts to start fiat-SC's  for their currencies. gvts already has this right and only gvts can allow others to use their fiat-sc's

another nonsense about scBTC and BTC used in this thread.
 - you cannot buy BTC on exchange, you can only buy scBTC. Until you withdrawn scBTC into your wallet,  you only have exchangeBTC
 - scBTC outside SC does not have utility of SC. => there will not be  GoxBTC, BitstampBTC, CircleBTC exchanges with variable prices if 2wp works.
 

surely you mean the other way around right?

You have BTC only if you own pKeys in MC.  Otherwise you own only scBTC with or without scBTC pKey.

Oh! Ok sure I get what you are saying.

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 09:30:44 AM
 #16465

Yes, this is what I wanted to explain

And that is the correct thinking.

Governments have no interest being someone else's sidechain. If they so wish to create a crypto-national currency they will create an altcoin which they will control the issuance of.

Austin's comment was probably made in speculation that some day government might want to create a national currency using BTC as reserve. In that scenario it would make sense to use a sidechain but frankly Bitcoin's model makes the concept of national currencies irrelevant so I can hardly see how this scheme would be viable in the long run. It sounds to me like a comment made in jest so as to illustrate the possibilities of sidechains and certainly not a plan to put in action.

As if Austin Hill would be consulted in that regard anyway  Cheesy Maybe he's having secret meeting with Gavin at the CIA/NSA  Roll Eyes

It is possible to use Federated peg  (1:1 BTC) and create govSC with govBTC. (this can be done today, no changes to bitcoin protocol are required).
This SC can be useful for institutional investors b/c they can feel safe as govSC is secured by gov. But this govSC will not allow atomic swaps between govBTC and BTC. => you must use 2wp to enter/exit.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 09:36:46 AM
 #16466

Yes, this is what I wanted to explain

And that is the correct thinking.

Governments have no interest being someone else's sidechain. If they so wish to create a crypto-national currency they will create an altcoin which they will control the issuance of.

Austin's comment was probably made in speculation that some day government might want to create a national currency using BTC as reserve. In that scenario it would make sense to use a sidechain but frankly Bitcoin's model makes the concept of national currencies irrelevant so I can hardly see how this scheme would be viable in the long run. It sounds to me like a comment made in jest so as to illustrate the possibilities of sidechains and certainly not a plan to put in action.

As if Austin Hill would be consulted in that regard anyway  Cheesy Maybe he's having secret meeting with Gavin at the CIA/NSA  Roll Eyes

It is possible to use Federated peg  (1:1 BTC) and create govSC with govBTC. (this can be done today, no changes to bitcoin protocol are required).
This SC can be useful for institutional investors b/c they can feel safe as govSC is secured by gov. But this govSC will not allow atomic swaps between govBTC and BTC. => you must use 2wp to enter/exit.

I'm not sure they would want the "exit" option  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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 09:43:28 AM
 #16467

Yes, this is what I wanted to explain

And that is the correct thinking.

Governments have no interest being someone else's sidechain. If they so wish to create a crypto-national currency they will create an altcoin which they will control the issuance of.

Austin's comment was probably made in speculation that some day government might want to create a national currency using BTC as reserve. In that scenario it would make sense to use a sidechain but frankly Bitcoin's model makes the concept of national currencies irrelevant so I can hardly see how this scheme would be viable in the long run. It sounds to me like a comment made in jest so as to illustrate the possibilities of sidechains and certainly not a plan to put in action.

As if Austin Hill would be consulted in that regard anyway  Cheesy Maybe he's having secret meeting with Gavin at the CIA/NSA  Roll Eyes

It is possible to use Federated peg  (1:1 BTC) and create govSC with govBTC. (this can be done today, no changes to bitcoin protocol are required).
This SC can be useful for institutional investors b/c they can feel safe as govSC is secured by gov. But this govSC will not allow atomic swaps between govBTC and BTC. => you must use 2wp to enter/exit.

I'm not sure they would want the "exit" option  Cheesy

:-) you are right. It is asymmetric-2wp. But if china will want to get paid then they will want BTC to move them into chinaGovSC.

It will be always possible to create blackMarketSC inside govSC
This will allow atomic swaps between blackMarketBTC and BTC and chinaBlackMarketBTC
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 10:32:21 AM
 #16468

lol, your stubbornness is gonna help me push this to 1,000,000 views soon enough.

you will single handedly be held responsible for causing the SC concept to fail with all the negative publicity you're gonna create.
What do you know about what are the readers thinking?
You just know the number of views, not their sentiment.

Maybe history will remember you for how much foolish you were being so stubborn in not understanding that 2wp SC can help Bitcoin move forward Smiley

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 11:55:29 AM
 #16469

lol, your stubbornness is gonna help me push this to 1,000,000 views soon enough.

you will single handedly be held responsible for causing the SC concept to fail with all the negative publicity you're gonna create.
What do you know about what are the readers thinking?
You just know the number of views, not their sentiment.

Maybe history will remember you for how much foolish you were being so stubborn in not understanding that 2wp SC can help Bitcoin move forward Smiley

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.

I'm quite happy  with how bitcoin is and think what Blockstream is doing is conflicted and introduces unnecessary risk. I'm done arguing that.  

Breaking the link between the currency and its ledger introduces too much risk to the system. But by all means go ahead. Devs gotta dev and its clear they've lead the way economically for this whole project. Good luck.
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 12:57:33 PM
 #16470

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.
You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?

Quote
Breaking the link between the currency and its ledger introduces too much risk to the system.
I completely agree: in fact this is exactly what happened in disasters like the mtgox issue.

SC could help in that regards. There is no guarantee, but there is some hope if it works as claimed: that's what "permissionless transition between the two chains" is all about.
For example, with mtgox we had to wait for its permission before withdrawing the btc on yours (theirs) account. That caused the problem to grow bigger and bigger.

Quote
But by all means go ahead. Devs gotta dev and its clear they've lead the way economically for this whole project. Good luck.
We are all on the same boat and it's our responsibility to check their work and warn other users if we see some weak link: we'll try to this job when the first SC will be announced and we'll be able to check the code and its implications.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 01:00:35 PM
 #16471

The demand is supported by the "peg".
There is a profitable trade, people will buy.
If BTC is rising faster than the scBTC, do you think people will not buy the scBTC?
It doesn't matter much what the feature the side chain adds, or whether there is demand for the feature.  The feature matters less than the prices.

The losers will be the folks waiting on confirmations when it unwinds....  or if it doesn't unwind, BTC holders lose liquidity (which could cause the pump to go higher than it otherwise might).

I fail to see what the profitable trade is.

You said BTC price rises faster than scBTC so one would think people would want to buy scBTC at discount but then you say that scBTC is actually going for a premium because of convenience to avoid SPV confirmations.

There is money to be made simply from SPVing coins, and then selling them at exchange to anyone that wants them but does not want to wait for SPV confirmations (which will be more than the exchange will require).

Which is it  Huh

If BTC price rises faster and you are holding scBTC why sell scBTC at discount to exchange buyers when you can use the peg to claim equal value to BTC?

Otherwise it sounds to me like you are describing a regular arbitrage type play. Something only speculators would take part in and I honestly don't see how this can scale to the extent that BTC would lose significant liquidity.

How do you describe it "unwinding". How does those waiting on confirmation lose?

It is a lot more simple than you think.
The BTC price rises faster, because that is the first purchase in this scenario.
Then SPV the BTC to scBTC.
By the time these are confirmed, prices should have equalized (because they are pegged, right?)

But... scBTC should trade at a premium on exchange because it avoids the time cost of the SPV.
So both are true: BTC rises faster, and scBTC trades at a premium on exchanges.

BTC doesn't have all that great liquidity now, market cap may be in the billions, but even just a few million dollars moves the market quite a bit.
This process would exacerbate this issue, to the benefit of the speculator.

It is interesting that you bring up arbitrage (which is somewhat different from a peg in that it is for the same asset rather than pegging two different assets).
If it were arbitrage, it would raise other issues such as "wash sale" tax rules.  This may be a "new" problem if scBTC and BTC are deemed by taxing authorities as the same or equivalent asset.  It is already going to become an issue with the CFTC and the Winklevoss ETP soon enough.
The tax authorities are complicit in creating and fostering the illusion that the paper asset is the same as the real asset.  (and that a Winklevoss ETP bitcoin or a coinbase coin are the same as having bitcoin in a wallet you control).

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
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 01:19:24 PM
 #16472

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.
You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?

brg444 is not such a good advocate for side chains, which is why I'd encouraged him to stop attempting that a couple hundred pages ago.  I like Side Chains, but also have a lot of precautionary concerns about them.   brg444 seemed to be engaged in convincing me that these aren't going to be considered problems (and so no effort would go to solving them).
If I thought that brg444 was writing from a position of some authority for SC, or even an insider of any kind, it would be VERY troubling and I would likely have flipped into also thinking that SC's are a bad idea.
 
When starting with the assumption that there are no problems, it will terrify all the people that are hopeful that proper safeguards would be deployed, or even are hopeful that good communication to help people avoid the pitfalls will be communicated (rather than claiming that such things "go without saying").


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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 01:22:23 PM
 #16473

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.
You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?


Let's be clear here.  You, they haven't given any piece of evidence whatsoever that SC's will perform economically the way you claim. And neither have I. It's ALL opinion at this point so stop talking pedantically as if you have. Maybe someone should get a third party economic analysis although I'd be skeptical of that as well. So I guess that just leaves us where we were before,  trust the geeks and Blockstream to change the rules in the middle of the game for their own benefit . No thanks.

I think we all know how its supposed to function on a high level at this point.  Reviewing code isn't going to change that.  It will simply act on facilitating  the SPVProof, not much else.

But like i said, it appears you guys have your own sense of ethical standards on this issue  so by all means, proceed in that basis because you can  and the rest of us will make our own judgments and take action appropriately.  

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 02:01:57 PM
 #16474

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.
You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?

brg444 is not such a good advocate for side chains, which is why I'd encouraged him to stop attempting that a couple hundred pages ago.  I like Side Chains, but also have a lot of precautionary concerns about them.   brg444 seemed to be engaged in convincing me that these aren't going to be considered problems (and so no effort would go to solving them).
If I thought that brg444 was writing from a position of some authority for SC, or even an insider of any kind, it would be VERY troubling and I would likely have flipped into also thinking that SC's are a bad idea.
 
When starting with the assumption that there are no problems, it will terrify all the people that are hopeful that proper safeguards would be deployed, or even are hopeful that good communication to help people avoid the pitfalls will be communicated (rather than claiming that such things "go without saying").



Do you mean SC's using DMMS (SPV proof) ? It would be fine to give them some name. What do you think ?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 04:41:59 PM
 #16475

Quote from: cypherdoc link=topic=68655.msg9491942#msg9491942 dadepended on having bought gold at an earlier timete=1415574181
lol, your stubbornness is gonna help me push this to 1,000,000 views soon enough.

you will single handedly be held responsible for causing the SC concept to fail with all the negative publicity you're gonna create.
What do you know about what are the readers thinking?
You just know the number of views, not their sentiment.

Maybe history will remember you for how much foolish you were being so stubborn in not understanding that 2wp SC can help Bitcoin move forward Smiley
*edited*

When I first started reading this thread, @ some 40 pages in, I didn't start at the beginning. My opinions were formed to a large existent on personality (ego) and my limited understanding.

So I went out and bought gold with BTC thinking at the very least Cypher wouldn't be able prove his argument in my situation as his position depended on having made the trade earlier.
At the time I saw Bitcoin mainly as a currency not a Store of Value, overtime my perceptions have changed, Bitcoins killer app today is Store of Value.  
 

If I learned anything it is don't shoot the messenger. and many readers may not have understood the concerns or given them unrealistic values. As for Cyphers shadow well I can only hope people realize for there to be an upside there has to be a downside. The way one insurers upside success is managing downside risks in ones control.

With brg444 he is overlooking what can be realistically controlled and ignoring what can't. He sees only the upside potential there is now down.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 06:38:09 PM
 #16476

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.
You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?

brg444 is not such a good advocate for side chains, which is why I'd encouraged him to stop attempting that a couple hundred pages ago.  I like Side Chains, but also have a lot of precautionary concerns about them.   brg444 seemed to be engaged in convincing me that these aren't going to be considered problems (and so no effort would go to solving them).
If I thought that brg444 was writing from a position of some authority for SC, or even an insider of any kind, it would be VERY troubling and I would likely have flipped into also thinking that SC's are a bad idea.
 
When starting with the assumption that there are no problems, it will terrify all the people that are hopeful that proper safeguards would be deployed, or even are hopeful that good communication to help people avoid the pitfalls will be communicated (rather than claiming that such things "go without saying").



Do you mean SC's using DMMS (SPV proof) ? It would be fine to give them some name. What do you think ?

DMMS acronym meaning?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 06:48:15 PM
 #16477

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.
You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?

brg444 is not such a good advocate for side chains, which is why I'd encouraged him to stop attempting that a couple hundred pages ago.  I like Side Chains, but also have a lot of precautionary concerns about them.   brg444 seemed to be engaged in convincing me that these aren't going to be considered problems (and so no effort would go to solving them).
If I thought that brg444 was writing from a position of some authority for SC, or even an insider of any kind, it would be VERY troubling and I would likely have flipped into also thinking that SC's are a bad idea.
 
When starting with the assumption that there are no problems, it will terrify all the people that are hopeful that proper safeguards would be deployed, or even are hopeful that good communication to help people avoid the pitfalls will be communicated (rather than claiming that such things "go without saying").
Do you mean SC's using DMMS (SPV proof) ? It would be fine to give them some name. What do you think ?

DMMS acronym meaning?

DMMS = dynamic-membership multi-party signature  (A block chain header)  Any digital signature scheme with one or many potential signers would be an example of a DMMS.  The block chain is just the most interesting one.

Yes, we've been working on coming up with names for the various issues.  I tried to come up with a catchy name for Cypherdoc's risk-free put scenario calling it a "Side Chain in a Fiat Hole", which is funny but probably won't catch on.

There are also various kinds of side chains under discussion.  For the most part when discussing SCs in this thread we've been referring to these DMMS SPV proof 2-way side chains.

Agree that having names for each of the varieties would make it easier to discuss.
I'm not fond of using the term "pegged sidechain" but that is what the Blockstream folks call them now.
I don't think a "peg" is a good thing.  Currency pegs have horrible implications, almost always fail, and I think calling them this brings them down, but I didn't choose the name.

If it was mine to name, I might have gone with "coin wrappers" or something without all the bad historical connotations.

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: 1330



View Profile
November 10, 2014, 07:04:31 PM
 #16478

Them so be it. You, they, whoever can think what they wan,  it dorsnt matter to me anymore . I think SC's are a  bad idea.
You mean this it your position, in spite of every piece of evidence someone can produce?

brg444 is not such a good advocate for side chains, which is why I'd encouraged him to stop attempting that a couple hundred pages ago.  I like Side Chains, but also have a lot of precautionary concerns about them.   brg444 seemed to be engaged in convincing me that these aren't going to be considered problems (and so no effort would go to solving them).
If I thought that brg444 was writing from a position of some authority for SC, or even an insider of any kind, it would be VERY troubling and I would likely have flipped into also thinking that SC's are a bad idea.
 
When starting with the assumption that there are no problems, it will terrify all the people that are hopeful that proper safeguards would be deployed, or even are hopeful that good communication to help people avoid the pitfalls will be communicated (rather than claiming that such things "go without saying").
Do you mean SC's using DMMS (SPV proof) ? It would be fine to give them some name. What do you think ?

DMMS acronym meaning?

DMMS = dynamic-membership multi-party signature  (A block chain header)

Yes, we've been working on coming up with names for the various issues.  I tried to come up with a catchy name for Cypherdoc's risk-fre put scenario calling it a "Side Chain in a Fiat Hole", which is funny but probably won't catch on.

There are also various kinds of side chains under discussion.  For the most part when discussing SCs we've been referring to these DMMS SPV proof 2-way side chains.

in my understanding DMMS are a positive evolution when the multi-party signature part are secured and managed in another way like with OT. I see problems with adjusting the Bitcoin protocol to aloe the use of Bitcoins hashing power to be a means to secure these. call them Decentralized-&-autonomous dynamic-membership multi-party signatures.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
November 10, 2014, 07:07:34 PM
 #16479

...
Agree that having names for each of the varieties would make it easier to discuss.
I'm not fond of using the term "pegged sidechain" but that is what the Blockstream folks call them now.
I don't think a "peg" is a good thing.  Currency pegs have horrible implications, almost always fail, and I think calling them this brings them down, but I didn't choose the name.

If it was mine to name, I might have gone with "coin wrappers" or something without all the bad historical connotations.

I'd suggest 'lock' instead of 'peg'.  'Peg' brings up images of a cribbage board where pegs are moved around as needed, and that is also the failure mode of many currency peg schemes (I imagine.)

'Lock' is more indicative of what is happening here.  BTC are locked with high security to back a sidechain extension.  As always, the security is a function of the quality of the implementation of course, but it's pretty clear to me that quality in implementation will bubble to the top (very much unlike the opaque world of off-chain extensions that we have seen to date.)


NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 10, 2014, 07:16:11 PM
 #16480

...
Agree that having names for each of the varieties would make it easier to discuss.
I'm not fond of using the term "pegged sidechain" but that is what the Blockstream folks call them now.
I don't think a "peg" is a good thing.  Currency pegs have horrible implications, almost always fail, and I think calling them this brings them down, but I didn't choose the name.

If it was mine to name, I might have gone with "coin wrappers" or something without all the bad historical connotations.

I'd suggest 'lock' instead of 'peg'.  'Peg' brings up images of a cribbage board where pegs are moved around as needed, and that is also the failure mode of many currency peg schemes (I imagine.)

'Lock' is more indicative of what is happening here.  BTC are locked with high security to back a sidechain extension.  As always, the security is a function of the quality of the implementation of course, but it's pretty clear to me that quality in implementation will bubble to the top (very much unlike the opaque world of off-chain extensions that we have seen to date.)

I like that even better than wrapping, perhaps locking would be an SPV in the direction away from the MC and unlocking would be moving back toward MC?
Wrapping and unwrapping would work, but locking is better (because it connotes that there is a key, which there is).  Wrapping is a coding term for reuse of code of a different type within another set of code, so it has that technical similarity, but likely most users won't be coders at some point (maybe now).

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 ... 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] 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 ... 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!