Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 08:57:22 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 ... 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] 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1980652 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:07:39 PM
 #16981


I'd love to see the look on your face as you find yourself sitting on a pile of useless CorpGovCoins (formerly Bitcoin) when it turns out that they are as interesting to people as PayPal-II and some other solution has taken the place that Bitcoin could have occupied as a trusted and autonomous value foundation.

this is exactly the dilemma all of us will be placed in by for-profit Blockstream creating all these SC's for whomever will pay the fee.  don't expect them to be selective in their choice of clients.  they are for profit, they have $15M worth of investors looking for returns based on SC construction fees, AND the SC clients who pay the fees expect them to work, as in siphoning off as many BTC from MC as possible to create liquidity and value.  this is a problem.  especially when 40% of core devs + 3 key committers are part of Blockstream.

Dude, you know as well as I that if the parties worked on sidechains under a non-profit of some sort you would be screaming bloody murder that there was something wrong with that and they cannot be successful without Adam Smith's invisible hand.  Your arguments are so transparent and silly that I don't think you are probably fooling even total newbs.

if any one of these speculative SC's get traction, you will fact a choice; move to SC or stay put on MC.  will SC become the new Bitcoin or will it be possible to upgrade Bitcoin to CorpGovCoins?  do you even want that?

Actually, there are a multitude of failure modes which could impact Bitcoin.  Sidechains helps a bunch on a variety of fronts, but it is no guarantee that Bitcoin will not be subverted.  Should Bitcoin fall, I do see a possibility that some of the sidechains will switch to a credible and defensible backing store although I expect that everyone hopes that doesn't happen.  It would be a giant hassle.  I expect that the core Bitcoin devs, and in particular the highly credible ones associated with Blockstream, will do everything they can protect Bitcoin against such an eventuality, but if Gavin and the Bitcoin Foundation manages to insert unsound system growth there may not be much that anyone can do to recover Bitcoin itself.

Bitcoin was always meant to be its own Self Contained Financial System.  And by that i meant an inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain (MC).

Sidechains will be absolutely part of the 'self-contained financial system'.  An integral part.  Sidecoins ARE Bitcoin.  It has no impact on the 'inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain(MC)' which is kind of a 'no duh' statement with no meaning.


1506243442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506243442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506243442
Reply with quote  #2

1506243442
Report to moderator
1506243442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506243442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506243442
Reply with quote  #2

1506243442
Report to moderator
1506243442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506243442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506243442
Reply with quote  #2

1506243442
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506243442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506243442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506243442
Reply with quote  #2

1506243442
Report to moderator
1506243442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506243442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506243442
Reply with quote  #2

1506243442
Report to moderator
1506243442
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506243442

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506243442
Reply with quote  #2

1506243442
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:12:17 PM
 #16982

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too. 

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:12:21 PM
 #16983

I'd love to see the look on your face as you find yourself sitting on a pile of useless CorpGovCoins (formerly Bitcoin) when it turns out that they are as interesting to people as PayPal-II and some other solution has taken the place that Bitcoin could have occupied as a trusted and autonomous value foundation.



this is exactly the dilemma all of us will be placed in by for-profit Blockstream creating all these SC's for whomever will pay the fee.  don't expect them to be selective in their choice of clients.  they are for profit, they have $15M worth of investors looking for returns based on SC construction fees, AND the SC clients who pay the fees expect them to work, as in siphoning off as many BTC from MC as possible to create liquidity and value.  this is a problem.  especially when 40% of core devs + 3 key committers are part of Blockstream.

if any one of these speculative SC's get traction, you will fact a choice; move to SC or stay put on MC.  will SC become the new Bitcoin or will it be possible to upgrade Bitcoin to CorpGovCoins?  do you even want that?

Bitcoin was always meant to be its own Self Contained Financial System.  And by that i meant an inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain (MC).

Your repeating the same delusional paranoia is not going to make it any more real.

Blockstream, I imagine, can be very selective in choosing their client as it as been mentioned they already have a gang of top level corporate clients lined up.

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.
Quote
Furthermore, it is not Blockstream's job to generate adoption for their clients' SC. If their client are willing to pay what I imagine is a pretty hefty fee for their service, then I imagine that they expect their sidechain idea to serve some utility or application that fulfills a demand or a need in the market. For these sidechains to succeed, unlike your delusional self would believe, they do not have to "siphon" as many BTC as possible.

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.
Quote

The goal here is to create a service/an application that uses the BTC currency as its unit of account not to compete with the BTC currency. Blockstream, I'm sure, is not in the business of creating "speculative" sidechains, this job will be left to scammy developers like Truthcoin.


what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:14:42 PM
 #16984

The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol

thanks for entering the discussion Peter.  btw, i agree with all you've said, especially THIS.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:16:51 PM
 #16985

if profits aren't important for them, re-organize as a non-profit.

They're for profit, the point is they don't have monopoly, or even dominance over the creation of sidechain. I know your small fry brain is unable to process the fact that sidechains are a public good available to all but that is very much a reality. It is open source code and you can expect thousands of developers all over the world tinkering with this technology and creating sidechains. Some will be useful, others will be speculative, a few will gain significant adoption.

There will be Blockstream2, Blockstream3. Hell, you can expect IBM, Redhat to get in the game and offer the same services. Blockstream at one point will be just another company offering decentralized platform consulting services. One with very competent developers of course which we should expect will succeed but no more.

This is such a beautiful prospect for the value of the Bitcoin ecosystem it is a tragedy you are so narrow minded you cannot see it.

agree.  Truthcoin is a great example of all the SC's that will be created that will cause confusion in the market place as to where to put your money:  BTC or TC?

Yeah right  Roll Eyes Put your money on the proven, secure and highly liquid store of value chain or on the piece of crap speculative chain that is less secure, less liquid and infinitely more risky. So confusing!

My point btw was that Blockstream is not making one penny from the creation of Truthcoin SC.

Bullshit.  no source code change has occurred therefore no systemic risk, unlike with SPVproof.

Systemic risk? The risk is already absolutely systemic.

Federated peg schemes are a reality. It is only a matter of time before a bunch of them pop up and gain some sort adoption at which point your sacred "inextricable" link WILL be broken.

Sold your Bitcoins yet?

"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
tim2020
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 7


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:17:53 PM
 #16986

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too.  

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

Thank Peter, I've got a much better understanding of the politics involved. This solidifies my understanding of the argument that it's * not * an insignificant change.

* edit *
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:36:38 PM
 #16987

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too.  

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

I see where you are coming from but my opinion, as stated previously, is that integration of sidechains within the protocol is an important "upgrade" for the sake of decentralization and the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger in the future.

Moreover, it seems to me colored coins and counterparty are a lesser technology compared to sidechains which I find to be a very intuitive and natural progression of the Bitcoin protocol. Sidechains on the protocol level makes it possible to create counterparty/coloredcoins schemes that work in better synergy with the Bitcoin protocol. It also enables any other application layer that smart developers can think of.

Through sidechains, this is now all possible without being dependent on these federated servers which are inherently more centralized and create a very real risk of inflation and other malicious acts.

TL;DR : SPVproof Sidechain allows for decentralization of applications built on top of the Bitcoin protocol. IMO, this aspect is a very natural and important progress for anyone who dreams of a decentralized, trustless future.

To answer your question : yes I believe the increase of block size is an inevitability although what model should be adopted remains up in the air and is frankly out of my expertise. I do believe though that sidechains are a new factor that should be considered when making these decisions.

"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

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 09:50:21 PM
 #16988

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

"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 16, 2014, 03:03:58 AM
 #16989

You know what the inflationists will promise you right?

Everything.
STT
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 03:13:23 AM
 #16990

They can promise you everything because they can pay all bills in theory.    When the reality arrives its the end of a fairy tale and it does not end well, the reality of borrowing large amounts to spend now is the bill later is far greater.   Eventually collapse is the only possible conclusion especially if taxes are raised and productive business outside government fails or leaves.  Either the debt collapses into default or possibly even the country as assets are seized and other extreme measures, theres many examples of this.  The majority of what backs dollars now is the debt held and traded as an asset, I cant see how they would reverse that sensibly

   The big thing now is that dollar has a 2nd home in every country of the world, any possible framework to support and replace that dollar when it goes missing could be vital

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 05:05:11 AM
 #16991

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

One of the features of side chains is that they don't need a free market to succeed.  They don't need open source or even demand for the side chain. 
For example one application would be coupons: 

1) Bitcoin merchant franchise company central office buys some BTC, and sends it to their side chain.
2) company inflates the side chain
3) company distributes the coupon "backed with bitcoin" (coupon is worth $20 off and has $0.10 worth of BTC in it with a locktime transaction at the expiry date so company gets it back if not used).
4) franchisees that accept the coupon are compensated the $20 back from the corporate promotion and they get 0.10 in BTC as their redemption bonus if redeemed before the expiry date.

This would not need to be open source, or require any free market distribution or any users to buy it even.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 05:11:23 AM
 #16992

One argument I would like to make is I don't consider SPV to be a "feature" like blacklisting but moreso an "upgrade" on a scheme that is already possible within the existing Bitcoin protocol (federated peg can be implemented right now as you have pointed out).

I think it is clearly a new feature (not that that's necessarily a bad thing--one could argue that Pay2ScriptHash was a new feature too).  The fact that federated sidechains are already possible in no way means that adding OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is an "upgrade." The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol.  If you argue that SPV-sidechains would be an "upgrade," would you not also argue that native support for colored coins or Counterparty features would also be an "upgrade"?  Like federated sidechains, these features are already possible on platforms that sit on top of bitcoin too.  

brg444: Do you support a hard-fork to increase the max block size limit?

Thank Peter, I've got a much better understanding of the politics involved. This solidifies my understanding of the argument that it's * not * an insignificant change.

* edit *
Correct it is a freaking huge change of monumental proportions.
Its a high-risk high-reward gambit that expands the potential in all sorts of currently unforeseen ways..
It really can't be implemented without the change,
Well... some special cases things can be done, (with the federation/oracles) but the vast capabilities of validating arbitrary code on (and with) the Bitcoin block chain is what takes the fork.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 05:15:45 AM
 #16993

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

One of the features of side chains is that they don't need a free market to succeed.  They don't need open source or even demand for the side chain. 
For example one application would be coupons: 

1) Bitcoin merchant franchise company central office buys some BTC, and sends it to their side chain.
2) company inflates the side chain
3) company distributes the coupon "backed with bitcoin" (coupon is worth $20 off and has $0.10 worth of BTC in it with a locktime transaction at the expiry date so company gets it back if not used).
4) franchisees that accept the coupon are compensated the $20 back from the corporate promotion and they get 0.10 in BTC as their redemption bonus if redeemed before the expiry date.

This would not need to be open source, or require any free market distribution or any users to buy it even.

Interesting application but I honestly don't see the point you are trying to make...or at least how it applies to my comment about free market decision.

So sidechains can succeed at doing what exactly if they generate no free market demand?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but if no user participate in this scheme how exactly does it "succeed"?


"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

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 05:21:02 AM
 #16994

Correct it is a freaking huge change of monumental proportions.
Its a high-risk high-reward gambit that expands the potential in all sorts of currently unforeseen ways..
It really can't be implemented without the change,
Well... some special cases things can be done, (with the federation/oracles) but the vast capabilities of validating arbitrary code on (and with) the Bitcoin block chain is what takes the fork.

It'd be interesting if you could expand on that.

My understanding is any sidechain scheme can be implemented by replacing SPVproof with federation/oracles. It was even suggested by the developers that this would be the first step of the implementation for most sidechains (bootstrapping on a federated peg model) then implemented through OP_SPV.

Is this not the case?

"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
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 05:25:34 AM
 #16995

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

One of the features of side chains is that they don't need a free market to succeed.  They don't need open source or even demand for the side chain. 
For example one application would be coupons: 

1) Bitcoin merchant franchise company central office buys some BTC, and sends it to their side chain.
2) company inflates the side chain
3) company distributes the coupon "backed with bitcoin" (coupon is worth $20 off and has $0.10 worth of BTC in it with a locktime transaction at the expiry date so company gets it back if not used).
4) franchisees that accept the coupon are compensated the $20 back from the corporate promotion and they get 0.10 in BTC as their redemption bonus if redeemed before the expiry date.

This would not need to be open source, or require any free market distribution or any users to buy it even.

Interesting application but I honestly don't see the point you are trying to make...or at least how it applies to my comment about free market decision.

So sidechains can succeed at doing what exactly if they generate no free market demand?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but if no user participate in this scheme how exactly does it "succeed"?

The users don't really have a choice.
The users are the franchisees of the corporate.  
They accept the coupon, and collect the $20.00 + ($0.10 in BTC) for $20.00 store credit from the consumer, or they lose their franchise.
So no free market demand is needed for some applications.

Side Chains can take all sorts of forms.  Essentially anything that can run a software program can be a part of the SPV proof.  It is pretty wide open in what it can do and for what it can be used.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 05:27:33 AM
 #16996

i'm offering a 2 BTC bounty for the IRL identity of brg444 OR a direct proof of a tie to Blockstream.

i'll increase it to 4 BTC if you can give me satisfactory evidence of both his IRL identity AND a direct tie to Blockstream.

both will be subject to my satisfaction of the evidence.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 05:32:32 AM
 #16997

well, there you go.  we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct.  these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation.

The difference being that the user will now be offered a more open source alternative from which to choose. The fact that more opaque, closed-source system will exist is inevitable and should suprise no one. Whether they succeed or not in this new paradigm of open source code and trustless alternatives is another question. One that the free market will decide

lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious.  or maybe you're just naive.  the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value.  the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC.  for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible.  such logic failure.

Hmm no, your brain dead logic is the failure. For corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as NECESSARY FOR THE SERVICE TO FULLFILL THE DEMAND OR NEED. One cannot create more demand for an application than exist.

It takes a real idiot to consider that there are a bunch of applications of features that would be more important to people than MONEY

what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world.  the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof.

There goes your brain dead logic in action once again. Corporate entities willing to bootstrap a closed-source, opaque sidechain on top of Bitcoin will NOT want to use SPVproof+MM. The federated server model is preferable to ensure control over the chain and security that is not dependent on miners MM.

As you would know, the federated model exists with Bitcoin as is. Therefore Blockstream could create such type of chain for corpCOIN RIGHT NOW without the need for SPVproof

That fucks up your logic quite a bit, doesn't it?

One of the features of side chains is that they don't need a free market to succeed.  They don't need open source or even demand for the side chain. 
For example one application would be coupons: 

1) Bitcoin merchant franchise company central office buys some BTC, and sends it to their side chain.
2) company inflates the side chain
3) company distributes the coupon "backed with bitcoin" (coupon is worth $20 off and has $0.10 worth of BTC in it with a locktime transaction at the expiry date so company gets it back if not used).
4) franchisees that accept the coupon are compensated the $20 back from the corporate promotion and they get 0.10 in BTC as their redemption bonus if redeemed before the expiry date.

This would not need to be open source, or require any free market distribution or any users to buy it even.

Interesting application but I honestly don't see the point you are trying to make...or at least how it applies to my comment about free market decision.

So sidechains can succeed at doing what exactly if they generate no free market demand?

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but if no user participate in this scheme how exactly does it "succeed"?

The users don't really have a choice.
The users are the franchisees of the corporate.  
They accept the coupon, and collect the $20.00 + ($0.10 in BTC) for $20.00 store credit from the consumer, or they lose their franchise.
So no free market demand is needed for some applications.

Side Chains can take all sorts of forms.  Essentially anything that can run a software program can be a part of the SPV proof.  It is pretty wide open in what it can do and for what it can be used.

Oh, I see. Well of course in some settings certain actors will not be given a choice but you can't deny that open source does democratizes the marketplace and could eventually lead to a more transparent corporate world. Now that it is possible, consumers will eventually demand it.


"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

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 05:33:10 AM
 #16998

i'm offering a 2 BTC bounty for the IRL identity of brg444 OR a direct proof of a tie to Blockstream.

i'll increase it to 4 BTC if you can give me satisfactory evidence of both his IRL identity AND a direct tie to Blockstream.

both will be subject to my satisfaction of the evidence.

 Shocked

Am I eligible to participate  Huh






 Cheesy

you have brought this witchhunt to another level

"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

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 05:44:29 AM
 #16999

Here: I'll throw you a bone since I really don't have anything to hide and it can only serve to make you look even more stupid in your own thread.

https://twitter.com/bergalex

"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 16, 2014, 05:50:48 AM
 #17000

Here: I'll throw you a bone since I really don't have anything to hide and it can only serve to make you look even more stupid in your own thread.

https://twitter.com/bergalex

Should have let me out you... we could have split the bounty.

Seriously cypher, don't be a dick.  There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight.  Grow the fuck up.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 ... 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!