Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:09:11 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 ... 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] 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805259 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:36:08 PM
 #16741

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
1481062151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062151
Reply with quote  #2

1481062151
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481062151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062151
Reply with quote  #2

1481062151
Report to moderator
1481062151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481062151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481062151
Reply with quote  #2

1481062151
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:48:33 PM
 #16742

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 03:51:27 PM
 #16743

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



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:03:57 PM
 #16744

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:16:36 PM
 #16745

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



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:31:26 PM
 #16746

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:36:00 PM
 #16747

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



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:42:47 PM
 #16748

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



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:45:35 PM
 #16749

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: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:47:31 PM
 #16750

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:48:44 PM
 #16751

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.

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

"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 13, 2014, 04:50:10 PM
 #16752

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.

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

well then, why not make it a non-profit?
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:50:52 PM
 #16753

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.

How is the federated model so centralized?  Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described.  This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes,"
if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:51:51 PM
 #16754

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:52:42 PM
 #16755

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.

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

well then, why not make it a non-profit?

because development comes before success and development needs money.

"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 13, 2014, 04:54:15 PM
 #16756

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 04:55:57 PM
 #16757

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.

How is the federated model so centralized?  Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described.  This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen
So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes,"
if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

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

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 13, 2014, 05:01:01 PM
 #16758

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive.

The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model.

Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin.


"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 13, 2014, 05:03:41 PM
 #16759

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive.

The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model.

Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin.



i just get confused when you go down one path, i follow, only to be diverted to another path:


The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 13, 2014, 05:25:48 PM
 #16760

here we go again:

Bitcoin Is a Payment System, Not an Investment: Woo

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-is-a-payment-system-not-an-investment-woo-vkLZekoCRc2yZu4Pr~2Ptw.html
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 ... 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!