Bitcoin Forum
July 29, 2021, 05:05:25 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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] 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2031507 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 02:21:58 PM
 #16701

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?
[/quote]

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

"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
1627535125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627535125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627535125
Reply with quote  #2

1627535125
Report to moderator
1627535125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627535125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627535125
Reply with quote  #2

1627535125
Report to moderator
1627535125
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1627535125

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1627535125
Reply with quote  #2

1627535125
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 02:46:28 PM
 #16702

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.
[/quote]

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?  
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:04:13 PM
 #16703

Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run.

I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives.

i just want to make another point here.  the only part of the SC process that we should expect to be OS is the 2wp or SPVproof itself.  OS is not required for the way the SC decides to run itself which is dependent on its developer.  for me, thinking of these for profit SC companies as circles helps envision a self encapsulated, potentially closed opaque system within which rides an unknown blockchain ledger to which your valuable BTC will be transferred at your own risk.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:15:14 PM
 #16704

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?  
[/quote]

But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above :

Quote
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me..

"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
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:19:18 PM
 #16705

I watched that twitter dialog.  They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required.  It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?  

But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above :

Quote
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me..
[/quote]

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:19:33 PM
 #16706

Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run.

I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives.

i just want to make another point here.  the only part of the SC process that we should expect to be OS is the 2wp or SPVproof itself.  OS is not required for the way the SC decides to run itself which is dependent on its developer.  for me, thinking of these for profit SC companies as circles helps envision a self encapsulated, potentially closed opaque system within which rides an unknown blockchain ledger to which your valuable BTC will be transferred at your own risk.

Not required, maybe. Expected? certainly.

The point is people can now choose between transparent and opaque systeme without any tradeoff in feature.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the majority will willingly transfer their wealth to a system that essentially recreates the closed, centralized financial institutions/services that the openness of the blockchain as made irrelevant.




"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
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:24:52 PM
 #16707

brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:27:10 PM
 #16708

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

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

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:29:01 PM
 #16709

brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?

Positive economic effect.

Irrelevant politically. Are politicians getting after TCP/IP because of Silk Road?

Comeon now, you know well we are creating the internet of value here.Like the internet politicians will quickly realize they are powerless in the face of innovations built on top of the Bitcoin protocol.


"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
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:32:39 PM
 #16710

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated.

but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:36:08 PM
 #16711

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated.

but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC.

Sorry, yes.

"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
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:48:33 PM
 #16712

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:51:27 PM
 #16713

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

"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
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:03:57 PM
 #16714

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:16:36 PM
 #16715

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

"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
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:31:26 PM
 #16716

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:36:00 PM
 #16717

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.
 
Man these articles are irritating, these people really don't have a clue what is coming.



It's a good thing we are at that point though. At least they're starting to admit defeat and recognizing the technology is useful is their first step of "acceptance".

Justus put it in a nice way on twitter "it's the bargaining part of grief for people who did not buy Bitcoin earlier"


"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
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:42:47 PM
 #16718

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.

you'd have to assume he would not be privy to the title of the article.  he must have said enough to give the author that impression.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:45:35 PM
 #16719

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

which make them all that more dangerous
Quote

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:47:31 PM
 #16720

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."


http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.

you'd have to assume he would not be privy to the title of the article.  he must have said enough to give the author that impression.

 Roll Eyes

Cause it would be the first time journalists use quotes out of context or fit them to their narrative right?


"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 ... 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] 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!