Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:30:33 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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] 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804216 times)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 02:32:09 AM
 #16501

They are correctly "freeze-locked" coins
Give us some more words on this please?

The TX that 'locks' the main chain coins is cryptographically much harder than a regular lock. It requires a 100 block confirmation depth (as for coinbase TX) for validity, and equally to reverse. Rightly, it is being called a "freeze" on those coins. Those coins are frozen on the main chain in such a way to cryptographically prove they cannot be moved, except within very specific conditions. The only way to move those coins, outside of the specific side-chain conditions, takes the same amount of hashpower as to change a coinbase TX. I.e. it is not merely a lock on those coins but a freeze-lock.

You should start a side-chains thread. It's interesting as hell

I'll admit they are intriguing, but ultimately they are already old technology ... they just don't know it yet.  Wink

Whatever keeps the money flowing to the technologists is alright by me. The sharks are swimming in our tank now,

1480861833
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861833

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861833
Reply with quote  #2

1480861833
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480861833
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480861833

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480861833
Reply with quote  #2

1480861833
Report to moderator
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 02:37:38 AM
 #16502

They are correctly "freeze-locked" coins
Give us some more words on this please?

The TX that 'locks' the main chain coins is cryptographically much harder than a regular lock. It requires a 100 block confirmation depth (as for coinbase TX) for validity, and equally to reverse. Rightly, it is being called a "freeze" on those coins. Those coins are frozen on the main chain in such a way to cryptographically prove they cannot be moved, except within very specific conditions. The only way to move those coins, outside of the specific side-chain conditions, takes the same amount of hashpower as to change a coinbase TX. I.e. it is not merely a lock on those coins but a freeze-lock.

You should start a side-chains thread. It's interesting as hell

I'll admit they are intriguing, but ultimately they are already old technology ... they just don't know it yet.  Wink

Whatever keeps the money flowing to the technologists is alright by me. The sharks are swimming in our tank now,

But will they be useless like altcoins? Is there a link to some ideas they are proposing? Or Does this just open the door to future 2.0 functionality?

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 02:47:03 AM
 #16503

as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.  

right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models.  what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction.  really?  who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models?  let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! Bitcoiners won't use them as well. ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin.  they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper.  SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for SC adoption.

now, let' take it one step further.  if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away?  first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally worse for Bitcoin.  i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC.  let's use Dogecoin as an example.

let me very clear about the scenario/mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again.  i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge SC, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1.  there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know.  there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Dogecoin. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC<-->scBTC<-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with Truthcoin (TC).  the exact opposite of what SC devs expect.  i am NOT saying that Doge will be able to convert directly to BTC via the 2wp. it will only be exchangeable for scBTC.  consider that Doge already has its own security.  it already has it's own brand.  it already has its own attraction.  it already has its own followers.  and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin.  it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.  

furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow defecting users via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Dogecoin block rewards, and tx fees from both Dogecoin and scBTC.  

you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do.  i got news for you, they don't.  that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that.  in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those altcoins into the house next to our core engine business (MC) and sucking out valuable BTC.

I had a lengthy post written about how this was such a stupid, stupid post but I can see you're just never gonna get it.

Enjoy your moment of shine, for now. Celebrate your ignorance

bwahaha.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 03:03:08 AM
 #16504

as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.  

right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models.  what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction.  really?  who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models?  let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin.  they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper.  SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for their adoption.

now, let' take it one step further.  if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away?  first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally for the worse for Bitcoin.  i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC.  let's use Dogecoin as an example.

let me very clear about the mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again.  i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1.  there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know.  there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Doge. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC-->scBTC-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with TC.  the exact opposite of what SC devs expect consider that Doge already has its own security.  it already has it's own brand.  it already has its own attraction.  it already has its own followers.  and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin.  it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.  

furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Doge block rewards, and tx fees from both Doge and scBTC.  

you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do.  i got news for you, they don't.  that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that.  in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those guys into the house next to our core engine business and sucking out valuable BTC.

I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating  SPV proof can save us from this disaster)


you've stated before we may already have SideChains with 1:1 2wp's. If they exist the way they do it is by using Multisig and distributing N of M signatures in a secure decentralized and obfuscated way even if they use Merger Mining, this approach is risk free to Bitcoins future and the correct approach in my opinion. The disadvantage is you have to go through a centralized clearing house, or trusted decentralized servers, this could be done something much like Bitshare's Delegates or secure OT servers. (the risk of loosing your BTC where the code is honest and open is equally eliminated but the market determines of the value of the SideChain not the BTC Peg.  it may always be 1:1 but if it is not its not an issue, it is a market failure if it unwinds not a Bitcoin protocol failure.) 

The above solutions give us decentralized exchanges, even corporate currencies, and secure user protected and untouchable BTC storage on nefarious sites like SR, the advantage are huge, and the risk to the user losing there BTC is reduced, to the actual fraud in the business interaction, (same as with SC) which will be mitigated over time with social reputation of honest players.

Its only when there is a decentralized protocol solution that allows bitcoin value to move onto other chains that I see the issues that have been presented arising.

What can we do to prevent this? seems simple to me, don't make the proposed Blockstream protocol change, lets use free market solutions. 


the decision to modify the source code to benefit Blockstream is in fact a political decision in a misconceived "attempt" to block out altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 platforms.  if i were them, i'd be pissed.  but as i outlined above, i think it will fail in the end b/c, as in most political moves to block competition, they often have the opposite effect.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
 #16505

as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.  

right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models.  what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction.  really?  who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models?  let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin.  they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper.  SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for their adoption.

now, let' take it one step further.  if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away?  first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally for the worse for Bitcoin.  i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC.  let's use Dogecoin as an example.

let me very clear about the mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again.  i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1.  there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know.  there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Doge. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC-->scBTC-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with TC.  the exact opposite of what SC devs expect consider that Doge already has its own security.  it already has it's own brand.  it already has its own attraction.  it already has its own followers.  and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin.  it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.  

furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Doge block rewards, and tx fees from both Doge and scBTC.  

you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do.  i got news for you, they don't.  that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that.  in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those guys into the house next to our core engine business and sucking out valuable BTC.

I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating  SPV proof can save us from this disaster)


you've stated before we may already have SideChains with 1:1 2wp's. If they exist the way they do it is by using Multisig and distributing N of M signatures in a secure decentralized and obfuscated way even if they use Merger Mining, this approach is risk free to Bitcoins future and the correct approach in my opinion. The disadvantage is you have to go through a centralized clearing house, or trusted decentralized servers, this could be done something much like Bitshare's Delegates or secure OT servers. (the risk of loosing your BTC where the code is honest and open is equally eliminated but the market determines of the value of the SideChain not the BTC Peg.  it may always be 1:1 but if it is not its not an issue, it is a market failure if it unwinds not a Bitcoin protocol failure.)  

The above solutions give us decentralized exchanges, even corporate currencies, and secure user protected and untouchable BTC storage on nefarious sites like SR, the advantage are huge, and the risk to the user losing there BTC is reduced, to the actual fraud in the business interaction, (same as with SC) which will be mitigated over time with social reputation of honest players.

Its only when there is a decentralized protocol solution that allows bitcoin value to move onto other chains that I see the issues that have been presented arising.

What can we do to prevent this? seems simple to me, don't make the proposed Blockstream protocol change, lets use free market solutions.  


the decision to modify the source code to benefit Blockstream is in fact a political decision in a misconceived "attempt" to block out altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 platforms.  if i were them, i'd be pissed.  but as i outlined above, i think it will fail in the end b/c, as in most political moves to block competition, they often have the opposite effect.

It's the resulting effects that would concern me, I can see how tempting a political approach could be given how confusing, uncertain and risky this space can be with all the 2.0 platforms and Alt competition

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 03:32:35 AM
 #16506

Oh look.. US markets closing on new highs while USD climbs Smiley Who predicted that Smiley
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 03:46:14 AM
 #16507

as far as altcoins and SC's are concerned, let me come at this question from another direction.  

right now, we have 538 altcoins in existence of varying kinds with diff security models.  what are SC's going to do to make all of them go away?
brg444 has said "someone" is going to reduce them to utility SC's w/o the altcoin but only with the "innovation" and that will be what causes their destruction.  really?  who's going to waste their time doing this for 538 altchains?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Doge inflation?  who's going to dev a utility chain for Freicoin demurrage? who is going to dev a chain for any one of the 538 altcoins most of which have weird monetary models?  let alone mine them to make them secure? the answer is NO ONE. it's b/c it's too much work and there is no upside to doing so for a Bitcoin minded dev precisely b/c there is no altcoin! ppl are supporting these altcoins precisely b/c they have speculative upside and most of the time don't involve the sound money properties of Bitcoin.  they will continue to exist as they are and is why you're not seeing a selloff since the whitepaper.  SC's do nothing to altcoins. which removes a major argument for their adoption.

now, let' take it one step further.  if we now allow all of them to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC via the 2wp with 1:1, i ask again, exactly what has changed and what is going to make all these go away?  first off, not only will they not go away but now i think they get stronger. it is fundamentally for the worse for Bitcoin.  i suggest that these altcoin devs are jumping with joy at the opportunity to get into the Bitcoin house and siphon away valuable BTC.  let's use Dogecoin as an example.

let me very clear about the mechanism and my assumptions here so brg444 won't distort them yet again.  i'm suggesting that there will be 2 separate coins riding on this new bolted on Doge, the original Dogecoin and the new scBTC created from the 2wp in a 1:1.  there will be a Doge blockchain that continues to create Doge from its own block rewards, which is inflationary as we know.  there will be tx fees generated by mining tx fees from both scBTC and Doge. in this scenario, i'm suggesting the 2wp will only more easily facilitate the movement of BTC-->scBTC-->Doge b/c of the risk free put along with the logarithmic increase in advertising claims that Doge will be able to use as we've seen with TC.  the exact opposite of what SC devs expect consider that Doge already has its own security.  it already has it's own brand.  it already has its own attraction.  it already has its own followers.  and it already has its own philosophy which happens to be different from Bitcoin.  it can advertise that philosophy with logarithmic intensity to those ordinary Bitcoiners (who only care to make a fast buck and may not care about the inflation) just like we've already seen happen with TC.  

furthermore, if successful at siphoning off BTC, Bitcoin miners might want to follow via direct mining as well as MM as they now have the revenue from Doge block rewards, and tx fees from both Doge and scBTC.  

you see, the problem with brg444 and the SC proponents is that they think everyone thinks like Bitcoiners do.  i got news for you, they don't.  that is what the whole speculative altcoin movement is about and SC's do nothing to change that.  in fact, it might make it much worse for us by letting those guys into the house next to our core engine business and sucking out valuable BTC.

I have only 1 simple question. What can we do to prevent this ? (I mean, how NOT validating  SPV proof can save us from this disaster)


you've stated before we may already have SideChains with 1:1 2wp's. If they exist the way they do it is by using Multisig and distributing N of M signatures in a secure decentralized and obfuscated way even if they use Merger Mining, this approach is risk free to Bitcoins future and the correct approach in my opinion. The disadvantage is you have to go through a centralized clearing house, or trusted decentralized servers, this could be done something much like Bitshare's Delegates or secure OT servers. (the risk of loosing your BTC where the code is honest and open is equally eliminated but the market determines of the value of the SideChain not the BTC Peg.  it may always be 1:1 but if it is not its not an issue, it is a market failure if it unwinds not a Bitcoin protocol failure.)  

The above solutions give us decentralized exchanges, even corporate currencies, and secure user protected and untouchable BTC storage on nefarious sites like SR, the advantage are huge, and the risk to the user losing there BTC is reduced, to the actual fraud in the business interaction, (same as with SC) which will be mitigated over time with social reputation of honest players.

Its only when there is a decentralized protocol solution that allows bitcoin value to move onto other chains that I see the issues that have been presented arising.

What can we do to prevent this? seems simple to me, don't make the proposed Blockstream protocol change, lets use free market solutions.  


the decision to modify the source code to benefit Blockstream is in fact a political decision in a misconceived "attempt" to block out altcoin and Bitcoin 2.0 platforms.  if i were them, i'd be pissed.  but as i outlined above, i think it will fail in the end b/c, as in most political moves to block competition, they often have the opposite effect.

It's the resulting effects that would concern me, I can see how tempting a political approach could be given how confusing, uncertain and risky this space can be with all the 2.0 platforms and Alt comparison.

as you said though, free market head to head competition is best.  politically trying to block out competition while at the same time trying to profit from it introduces all sorts of self interested financial conflicts. head to head competition would force them to come to consensus on MC or testnet instead of using SC's.  i view SC's as an excuse to do the hard work.  there is every reason to believe the altcoins will immediately bolt themselves onto the MC via the 2wp as there is no downside for them.  altcoins can't move to BTC.  there is only the potential to attract BTC--->scBTC--->altcoin as they can sell the concept of a risk free put.  there are plenty of current BTC speculators who are unhappy with the last 11 mo of BTC price action and might be willing to switch to a new flavor of altcoin thru the cost free 2wp.  TC is just the first example. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 03:46:57 AM
 #16508

Oh look.. US markets closing on new highs while USD climbs Smiley Who predicted that Smiley

you! Wink
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:13:25 AM
 #16509


as you said though, free market head to head competition is best.  politically trying to block out competition while at the same time trying to profit from it introduces all sorts of self interested financial conflicts. head to head competition would force them to come to consensus on MC or testnet instead of using SC's.  i view SC's as an excuse to do the hard work. there is every reason to believe the altcoins will immediately bolt themselves onto the MC via the 2wp as there is no downside for them.  altcoins can't move to BTC.  there is only the potential to attract BTC--->scBTC--->altcoin as they can sell the concept of a risk free put.  there are plenty of current BTC speculators who are unhappy with the last 11 mo of BTC price action and might be willing to switch to a new flavor of altcoin thru the cost free 2wp.  TC is just the first example.  

Is there no one honest enough in this thread to call him out on this blatantly nonsensical proposition?

How exactly do you propose this stupid scheme of yours work?

How do you "sell" a risk free put and deliver an altcoin and expect this idiot plan to "siphon" BTC off the mainchain. Do you realise that in this farfetched mindfucked scenario of yours where there is a scBTC and an altcoin on the same chain the scBTC does not participate in the altcoin speculation. They are in most likelyhood two different sidechains, one on top of the other.

So here is how your scenario goes. Cypherclown, dissapointed with the performance of BTC, choses to lock his coin to this new DOGE sidechain. He does so because of the 1:1 peg offered. Of course, it makes sense : he can benefit from the fuckall innovation of the DOGEchain while protecting the value of his coin. The best of both world : less liquidity, no additional feature and a less secure chain! Man that sounds great.

So he sits pretty on this DOGEchain, but soon realizes that the value of his DOGEBTC is tracking the price of BTC because of the 1:1 peg.
 
Now what you are saying is by some extraordinary turn of event, he will find interest in the DOGEcoin because it fluctuates up & down (damn speculator I tell ya!). So instead of locking his coin on the 1:1 peg, he transfers it to the DOGEcoin chain booted on top of the sidechain. He now, by all pratical means, owns nothing but DOGshit. There is no 1:1 return to the BTC blockchain for him.

Now explain to me, you genius, how is that any different than a regular sucker being fooled into buying dogecoin in the most convential way.

"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 11, 2014, 04:27:55 AM
 #16510

Now explain to me, you genius, how is that any different than a regular sucker being fooled into buying dogecoin in the most convential way.

that's the pt idiot.  by allowing these altcoins to bolt themselves onto the MC, they will conduct over the top advertising which will attract BTC speculators to transfer into the altcoin via scBTC.  just like IRL keystroke would with TC.  sorry son, this is reality.  get an imagination dumbass.

this is exactly the problem you create with SC's.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:32:26 AM
 #16511

let's backup a step brg444.

you said SC's would destroy altcoins.  show me how when they can bolt onto the MC as a SC.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:34:54 AM
 #16512

Now explain to me, you genius, how is that any different than a regular sucker being fooled into buying dogecoin in the most convential way.

that's the pt idiot.  by allowing these altcoins to bolt themselves onto the MC, they will conduct over the top advertising which will attract BTC speculators to transfer into the altcoin via scBTC.  just like IRL keystroke would with TC.  sorry son, this is reality.  get an imagination dumbass.

this is exactly the problem you create with SC's.

THEY DON'T USE scBTC you retard.

Speculators don't care about the 2wp 1:1 peg, they want to expose themselves to the altcoin exchange rate!

It makes no sense and creates no incentive for them go BTC -> scBTC -> Doge when they can simply go BTC -> Doge already.

"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 11, 2014, 04:38:23 AM
 #16513

Now explain to me, you genius, how is that any different than a regular sucker being fooled into buying dogecoin in the most convential way.

that's the pt idiot.  by allowing these altcoins to bolt themselves onto the MC, they will conduct over the top advertising which will attract BTC speculators to transfer into the altcoin via scBTC.  just like IRL keystroke would with TC.  sorry son, this is reality.  get an imagination dumbass.

this is exactly the problem you create with SC's.

THEY DON'T USE scBTC you retard.

Speculators don't care about the 2wp 1:1 peg, they want to expose themselves to the altcoin exchange rate!

It makes no sense and creates no incentive for them go BTC -> scBTC -> Doge when they can simply go BTC -> Doge already.

then they'd have to go thru a centralized exchange idiot.  maybe they don't want to do that and they'd prefer to use a decentralized exchange process like the SC which is costless and potentially more anonymous. 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:39:16 AM
 #16514

let's backup a step brg444.

you said SC's would destroy altcoins.  show me how when they can bolt onto the MC as a SC.

Because a sidechain can claim their feature and utility without having to deal with their shitty native coin. Consequently, any scamcoin creator have no more argument to attract speculators to their shitty coin because of "growth potential" offered by their new innovative feature/algo

It doesn't get more simple than that.

"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 11, 2014, 04:44:22 AM
 #16515

let's backup a step brg444.

you said SC's would destroy altcoins.  show me how when they can bolt onto the MC as a SC.

Because a sidechain can claim their feature and utility without having to deal with their shitty native coin. Consequently, any scamcoin creator have no more argument to attract speculators to their shitty coin because of "growth potential" offered by their new innovative feature/algo

It doesn't get more simple than that.

you didn't even read my original post above about this.

what Bitcoin dev is going to waste their valuable time devving a Dogecoin utility chain?  how do you even do that anyway w/o the Dogecoin itself?  the feature of Dogecoin is the coin, idiot!  that's the pt, Dogecoiners like the inflationary nature of the coin itself.  that is why they're in it in the first place.  how do you build that into a utility chain?  even if you could, what Bitcoiner is going to use it, and for what utility are you talking about?  inflation?  if no Bitcoiners use it, then it can't be MM'd either.  
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:44:35 AM
 #16516

then they'd have to go thru a centralized exchange idiot.  maybe they don't want to do that and they'd prefer to use a decentralized exchange process like the SC which is costless and potentially more anonymous. 

No they don't. They can do BTC to DOGEcoin sidechain. No use going through a different unit that is pegged 1:1.

But let me get this right...

So the only thing stopping altcoins from taking off is decentralized exchanges? You have got to be kidding me.. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

1. It is not costless.
2. It is no more anonymous than btc-e.

Worse, if you get stuck on that stupid DOGEcoin sidechain when it tanks. It'll take you two days to break out the door.



"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 11, 2014, 04:47:11 AM
 #16517

then they'd have to go thru a centralized exchange idiot.  maybe they don't want to do that and they'd prefer to use a decentralized exchange process like the SC which is costless and potentially more anonymous. 

No they don't. They can do BTC to DOGEcoin sidechain. No use going through a different unit that is pegged 1:1.

But let me get this right...

So the only thing stopping altcoins from taking off is decentralized exchanges? You have got to be kidding me.. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

1. It is not costless.
2. It is no more anonymous than btc-e.

Worse, if you get stuck on that stupid DOGEcoin sidechain when it tanks. It'll take you two days to break out the door.




the Dogecoin SC can be designed to carry scBTC as well.  that was my original condition.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:51:05 AM
 #16518

you didn't even read my original post above about this.

what Bitcoin dev is going to waste their valuable time devving a Dogecoin utility chain?  how do you even do that anyway w/o the Dogecoin itself?  the feature of Dogecoin is the coin, idiot!  that's the pt, Dogecoiners like the inflationary nature of the coin itself.  how do you build that into a utility chain?  even if you could, what Bitcoiner is going to use it, and for what utility are you talking about?  inflation?  if no Bitcoiners use it, then it can't be MM'd either. 

Well captain obvious OF COURSE they won't. Why? Well maybe because dogecoin is a stupid idea to begin with. One that will die in due time.

"What Bitcoiner is going to use it"  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Are you out of your mind? THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

Yes it is possible to create a dogecoin chain. NO! it creates no utility at all. Just a shitty coin bootstrapped on top of a sidechain.

So you went from saying no one would use it, to suggesting it would attach itself to the MC and siphon BTC  Huh Huh

You are right. Sidechains will not kill Dogecoin. It will exist as long as there are people stupid enough to participate in that coin. What sidechains will do is make irrelevant any coin that advertises itself with "utility" features (fast tx, different algo, anonymity)

"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 11, 2014, 04:57:09 AM
 #16519

you didn't even read my original post above about this.

what Bitcoin dev is going to waste their valuable time devving a Dogecoin utility chain?  how do you even do that anyway w/o the Dogecoin itself?  the feature of Dogecoin is the coin, idiot!  that's the pt, Dogecoiners like the inflationary nature of the coin itself.  how do you build that into a utility chain?  even if you could, what Bitcoiner is going to use it, and for what utility are you talking about?  inflation?  if no Bitcoiners use it, then it can't be MM'd either. 

Well captain obvious OF COURSE they won't. Why? Well maybe because dogecoin is a stupid idea to begin with. One that will die in due time.

here's the problem.  it's stupid to you but not to every Dogecoin holder out there.  and SC's do nothing to make it die either.  that's my pt.
Quote

"What Bitcoiner is going to use it"  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Are you out of your mind? THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

Yes it is possible to create a dogecoin chain. NO! it creates no utility at all. Just a shitty coin bootstrapped on top of a sidechain.

but you tried to use that stupid idea of your "Dogecoin" utility chain killing Dogecoin itself.  see why it won't work now?  Bitcoin devs won't dev it, users won't support it, so your idea doesn't work.  get it?
Quote

So you went from saying no one would use it, to suggesting it would attach itself to the MC and siphon BTC  Huh Huh

You are right. Sidechains will not kill Dogecoin. It will exist as long as there are people stupid enough to participate in that coin. What sidechains will do is make irrelevant any coin that advertises itself with "utility" features (fast tx, different algo, anonymity)

yes, that's exactly what i'm saying.  Dogecoin will bolt itself to MC as a SC b/c it has nothing to lose and everything to gain by siphoning off whatever BTC it can get whether you think its logical or not.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 05:00:17 AM
 #16520

the Dogecoin SC can be designed to carry scBTC as well.  that was my original condition.

So what!? Both are not fungible.

There are two type of market participants :

1. Those that want to preserve the value of their investement. All they will care about is sidechains that enable 1:1 peg. Of course that is not the only condition for them to want to lock their BTC to such a chain. It needs to provide a certain utility/feature. There is no point locking your coin to a 1:1 peg of DOGEchain, that I'm sure you can agree.

2. The speculators. They want to be exposed to market fluctuation other than BTC's. These people do not care about 1:1 peg. It completely goes against what they're looking for. For this reason, these people are gonna jump straight to any altcoin.

Considering this, it makes no sense to create a SC with both a 1:1 peg & an altcoin.

Either you are an utility chain or a speculative one.

Speculative ones are altcoins and NO they will not succeed selling themselves with the 2wp because in their case, all it is in reality is a decentralized exchange. A feature that can be considerably more risky than a regular centralized exchange if the user wants to cash out during a crash.

"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 ... 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] 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 ... 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!