Bitcoin Forum
September 25, 2017, 02:58:49 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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] 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1981126 times)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:02:01 PM
 #16521

Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of atomic swaps within one chain, but rereading appendix C I see there is another cross chain method that is using that terminology.  So, yes you can move coins across chains and avoid the SPV proof if you can find a willing partner to perform the trade with.  Unfortunately, the sidechains paper is light on details, so I'm not sure if this can be done without protocol changes to BTC.

ok. thanks for the clarification.

The paper reference a more detailed description of atomic swaps here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949


Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
1506308329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506308329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506308329
Reply with quote  #2

1506308329
Report to moderator
1506308329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506308329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506308329
Reply with quote  #2

1506308329
Report to moderator
1506308329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506308329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506308329
Reply with quote  #2

1506308329
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506308329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506308329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506308329
Reply with quote  #2

1506308329
Report to moderator
1506308329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506308329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506308329
Reply with quote  #2

1506308329
Report to moderator
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 11, 2014, 04:08:01 PM
 #16522

And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.
TBF and Blockstream are the only companies paying people to develop on Bitcoin Core.

Bitcoin Core is not the only implementation of Bitcoin.

Conformal Systems did, in fact, "put up" and received little-to-no acknowledgement for doing so. (To say nothing of all the other developers who tried to do the same thing but were not able to overcome the resistance and stonewalling via which Bitcoin Core team defends their turf)

"Shut up or put up" is a lie, because as soon as somebody actually does it the goal posts promptly move.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:09:12 PM
 #16523

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:10:16 PM
 #16524

Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of atomic swaps within one chain, but rereading appendix C I see there is another cross chain method that is using that terminology.  So, yes you can move coins across chains and avoid the SPV proof if you can find a willing partner to perform the trade with.  Unfortunately, the sidechains paper is light on details, so I'm not sure if this can be done without protocol changes to BTC.

ok. thanks for the clarification.

The paper reference a more detailed description of atomic swaps here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949



Unfortunately that doesn't address my question, which is specifically: how do we check if the random number chosen by A is known?  Verifying signatures is obviously supported, but how do you go about first requiring a number be known without already knowing it (hash it I'd guess), and then what OP code do you use to verify it?

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:12:31 PM
 #16525

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

How about to provide a service via that sidechain that is paid for in BTC pegged currency?  I'd much rather innovate to earn BTC than innovate and then have to worry about bootstrapping a currency.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:17:17 PM
 #16526

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.


With the protocol as is it's possible to design these technologies around Bitcoin, the pump and dump is market hype, IPO style.
Innovators still need a profit motive and to mitigate risk SC don't provided that. I still haven't been convinced we need the Blockstreem protocol to enable this innovation, why not use what we have.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:27:17 PM
 #16527

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

How about to provide a service via that sidechain that is paid for in BTC pegged currency?  I'd much rather innovate to earn BTC than innovate and then have to worry about bootstrapping a currency.

agreed, but what would be the mechanism of the pmt?  is this what "demurrage" is supposed to do ala LukeJr keeps talking about?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:32:27 PM
 #16528

Sorry for the confusion, I was thinking of atomic swaps within one chain, but rereading appendix C I see there is another cross chain method that is using that terminology.  So, yes you can move coins across chains and avoid the SPV proof if you can find a willing partner to perform the trade with.  Unfortunately, the sidechains paper is light on details, so I'm not sure if this can be done without protocol changes to BTC.

ok. thanks for the clarification.

The paper reference a more detailed description of atomic swaps here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=193281.msg2224949#msg2224949



Unfortunately that doesn't address my question, which is specifically: how do we check if the random number chosen by A is known?  Verifying signatures is obviously supported, but how do you go about first requiring a number be known without already knowing it (hash it I'd guess), and then what OP code do you use to verify it?

fair.

I've gone through the aforementioned thread just to found out that the description
in the above link was just the initial prototype. Dunno why blockstream didn't link
the final proposal (formalized as BIP draft) contained here:

https://github.com/TierNolan/bips/blob/bip4x/bip-atom.mediawiki

I'm not saying that it contains the answers to all your question
but after a quick glance it seems a lot more informative.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:35:39 PM
 #16529

And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.
TBF and Blockstream are the only companies paying people to develop on Bitcoin Core.

Bitcoin Core is not the only implementation of Bitcoin.

Conformal Systems did, in fact, "put up" and received little-to-no acknowledgement for doing so. (To say nothing of all the other developers who tried to do the same thing but were not able to overcome the resistance and stonewalling via which Bitcoin Core team defends their turf)

"Shut up or put up" is a lie, because as soon as somebody actually does it the goal posts promptly move.

actually, what happens if SPVproof gets added to Bitcoin Core but BTC-d ignores it?

edit:  or libbitcoin or BitcoinJS for that matter?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:38:04 PM
 #16530

i hate articles like these, esp from guys like J Levin who i think is generally respected in the community b/c of his Oxford CS training and Coinometrics.  i however have not been impressed with his previous thinking as he is one of the geeks who doesn't fully get Bitcoin:

https://medium.com/@jony_levin/i-love-the-blockchain-just-not-bitcoin-354c511ad3e5

same reason, same hate from me:  he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed or that it can somehow be replaced or added to with another token (currency unit).  he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

this is still a problem i have with making protocol changes; how do you insert a protocol change that doesn't favor a certain group of ppl or disadvantage the ppl that have come before the change?  b/c Bitcoin is an open community, outside voices are allowed to be heard loud and clear.  however, we never know to what extent they are personally invested in the former rule set (protocol) as opposed to the new rule set they are proposing.

I'm not certain what problem you have with his article?

Where does he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed? In his conclusion ("it this does not have to be the case forever.") ?

It seems to me you have misunderstood the premise of his article. When he mentions :

Quote
I would like to push for blockchains with native tokens rather than just blockchains (innovative, probabilistically immutable databases) which have far lower utility if any.

He is not supporting or demanding the creation of different blockchains but merely implying that the use of the blockchain technology necessitate a native token. He then demonstrates why it is so and confirms the importance of the Bitcoin unit.

He very much supports the arguments you, and most of us, have championed in this thread.

"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 11, 2014, 04:42:44 PM
 #16531

actually, what happens if SPVproof gets added to Bitcoin Core but BTC-d ignores it?

edit:  or libbitcoin or BitcoinJS for that matter?
Same with any other change to the protocol:

The economic majority will decide.

If an economic majority upgrades to the new Bitcoin Core version, their fork will win.

If an economy majority stays with old Bitcoin Core versions or switches to btcd, then their fork will win.

Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:45:01 PM
 #16532

i hate articles like these, esp from guys like J Levin who i think is generally respected in the community b/c of his Oxford CS training and Coinometrics.  i however have not been impressed with his previous thinking as he is one of the geeks who doesn't fully get Bitcoin:

https://medium.com/@jony_levin/i-love-the-blockchain-just-not-bitcoin-354c511ad3e5

same reason, same hate from me:  he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed or that it can somehow be replaced or added to with another token (currency unit).  he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

this is still a problem i have with making protocol changes; how do you insert a protocol change that doesn't favor a certain group of ppl or disadvantage the ppl that have come before the change?  b/c Bitcoin is an open community, outside voices are allowed to be heard loud and clear.  however, we never know to what extent they are personally invested in the former rule set (protocol) as opposed to the new rule set they are proposing.

I'm not certain what problem you have with his article?

Where does he implies that the Bitcoin currency unit can be changed? In his conclusion ("it this does not have to be the case forever.") ?

It seems to me you have misunderstood the premise of his article. When he mentions :

Quote
I would like to push for blockchains with native tokens rather than just blockchains (innovative, probabilistically immutable databases) which have far lower utility if any.

He is not supporting or demanding the creation of different blockchains but merely implying that the use of the blockchain technology necessitate a native token. He then demonstrates why it is so and confirms the importance of the Bitcoin unit.

He very much supports the arguments you, and most of us, have championed in this thread.


you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:45:29 PM
 #16533

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.




cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:49:43 PM
 #16534

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.






re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:51:57 PM
 #16535


Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.

yep
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 04:58:58 PM
 #16536

you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.

I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever.

I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous 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
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 05:05:24 PM
 #16537

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.






re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806


View Profile
November 11, 2014, 05:06:08 PM
 #16538


Anybody who cares about Bitcoin in a positive way won't roll out changes which threaten to cause a tie, or even anything but a near-universal agreement.

yep

For instance, a hard forking change to increase block size.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 05:06:28 PM
 #16539

you may be right.  i had a little trouble ascertaining the article's true message while in a rush.

i think it was this part: "it this does not have to be the case forever."  and this part which i said above:

he then doesn't even mention how tx fees can make up for lost blockchain security incentives after a block halving which is a disingenuous and incomplete discussion.  a mention that tx fees "need and can" increase to compensate for decreasing block reward would have been totally appropriate and complete.

when someone makes an error of omission that is so basic like he did, i immediately become suspicious.  he should know better.

I think this last part you're referring is simply a caution that Bitcoin, although doubtful, might not necessarily be #1 forever.

I do agree that the mention of transition to "tx-fee" incentive should have been included, but I don't think it was avoided in any disingenuous way.

but he's a CS from Oxford.  here's what he said which is flat out erroneous and incomplete.  maybe he didn't mean it but still:

In Bitcoin, a miner that earns the right to publish a block on the main chain is currently paid 25 BTC (~$8500 at current prices). This provides adequate incentives to have highly specialised hardware running in datacentres across the world. If the reward halved, as it is set to do in 2016, the incentive to provide these proofs would halve and we could likely see a scenario where the proofs would now be far less reliable (partly due to the excess hardware that could be bought on the cheap). In other words without a high token value on a blockchain there is little security or integrity of the data contained within.

i don't want to argue on this as we have plenty of other things to argue about going forward re: SC's.  this is the last i'll say on this.  Grin
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 11, 2014, 05:10:05 PM
 #16540

I think other corde devs can keep core devs in Blockstream in check.  And the fact of the matter is that this company and TBF are the only things keeping paid developers working on Bitcoin.  Frankly, if you have a problem with it, then shut up and put up.  Put up BTC (and/or encourage others to do so) to fund a core dev.  You don't need permission.  Just start paying a great developer and he'll become a core dev once he proves his worth.

And there's another thing that I like about sidechains.  Lately, I hear about cool technologies... for example maidsafe distributed storage, and the zen-something public supercomputer... and get excited.  And then I hear about their stupid pump and dump alt-coin that you have to use and its a pretty big letdown.  

look at the JLevin article i just put up.  he's moving in the opposite direction as you, it appears, in regards to "tokens".
Quote

Sidechains would give no excuses to create these app-specific coins -- or what I mean is that an honest company would create a Sidechain with pegged currency to take advantage of blockchain technology but avoid accusations and temptations to pump and dump.  And also, a Sidechain will avoid the likely SEC inquiry as issuing the coin before it has any use whatsoever (before your product is done) starts to make it look a lot like a security.



so what's the financial incentive for a company to create a SC with 2wp w/o a token?

Yes, the concept of a blockchain is great.  A single, open, universal unit of account is great, and Bitcoin will likely out-compete all others simply due to network effect -- causing alt-scam anguish in these app-coins even if that wasn't the original intention.  But the blockchain as defined by Bitcoin is overly limited.  Its been obvious since early 2012 that the bitcoin blockchain has a serious problem and that is it can only do trustless transfer, not trustless exchange.  Therefore all the Bitcoin 2.0 stuff.

Sidechains give us Bitcoin the currency, and the blockchain without locking us to one particular blockchain implementation.


Financial incentive:  Exactly!  We can't determine the financial incentive without knowing what the company does.  In other words, the financial incentive is going to be getting paid for whatever real value that company delivers, not due to appreciation or speculation of some app-coin token.  

Trivial example: you could create a document registration company.  Company creates a registrar sidechain with some modifications to add document registration data fields and retention time.  To use it every transaction has to transfer .0001 scBTC to the company, per year retained.  And as a bonus no BTC dev is whining about BTC blockchain spam.  Company makes additional $ with related services like testifying in court.  Sounds like not much money?  But e-bank statements have always been bullsh*t.  "Click here" to see the bank statement today, click tomorrow and you may see something completely different because the company's web server serves the statement.  Every e-statement worldwide should move to a blockchain based validation system.  Those .0001 BTCs would add up pretty quickly.  But if on the Bitcoin blockchain it would seriously hamper Bitcoin scalability -- note my registrar sidechain has a retention time -- old blocks can be forgotten.






re: scalability.  but this is what Gavin's block size expansion proposal is supposed to address.

Gavin's block size expansion is a hard forking change that will splinter the community.... I don't see how you could possibly think that is preferable to a soft fork change that solves the same problem while also opening up many other exciting possibilities (such as the document timestamping service of thezerg, or a proof of storage chain, or a chain for distributed computing, or. ...).

who is against increasing block size and why? 
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 ... 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!