Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 04:37:12 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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] 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013500 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:21:00 AM
 #17001

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.
1511498232
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498232

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498232
Reply with quote  #2

1511498232
Report to moderator
1511498232
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498232

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498232
Reply with quote  #2

1511498232
Report to moderator
1511498232
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498232

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498232
Reply with quote  #2

1511498232
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511498232
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498232

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498232
Reply with quote  #2

1511498232
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:23:54 AM
 #17002

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


so did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already.  Cry

"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, 06:26:49 AM
 #17003

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


so did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already.  Cry

i already said i don't mind federated servers as it doesn't touch source and therefore doesn't change Bitcoin.

i may even use a federated server if it has good features.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:28:28 AM
 #17004

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


let me have you answer that question.

what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin?

Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains

"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, 06:34:21 AM
 #17005

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


let me have you answer that question.

what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin?

Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains

the SPVproof will break Bitcoins core foundation which is the link btwn its currency unit and its blockchain.  this by itself will be inflationary as we will no longer have a functioning system as value gets drained away to speculative SC's (speculative in the sense of not being BTC anymore).  off chain systems don't inflate Bitcoin as those BTC deposited at a gox lumped address, for example, still exist on the Bitcoin blockchain.  the orderbooks can do their stuff but it is not inflationary to Bitcoin.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:35:58 AM
 #17006

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


so did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already.  Cry

i already said i don't mind federated servers as it doesn't touch source and therefore doesn't change Bitcoin.

i may even use a federated server if it has good features.

 Cheesy

you are beyond retarded

when are you ever going to realize that federated peg create the same off-mainchain BTC scheme as SPVproof would? a sidechain, is a sidechain, is a sidechain. the method used to validate information and communicate between chains changes little. please don't give me that "institutionalized" or "systemized" bullshit.

whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.

So in one post federated servers are bad because they create speculative assets that diminishes Bitcoin Sound Money properties but in the next post you "may even use a federated server"

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Lay off the drinks brother



"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, 06:42:04 AM
 #17007

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


let me have you answer that question.

what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin?

Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains

the SIDECHAINS will break Bitcoins core foundation which is the link btwn its currency unit and its blockchain.  this by itself will be inflationary as we will no longer have a functioning system as value gets drained away to speculative SC's (speculative in the sense of not being BTC anymore).  off chain systems don't inflate Bitcoin as those BTC deposited at a gox lumped address, for example, still exist on the Bitcoin blockchain.  the orderbooks can do their stuff but it is not inflationary to Bitcoin.

FTFY.

Off chain systems can be equally speculative and drain away value in very much the same way as sidechains would.

Additionally, bitcoins locked on sidechains exist in the same way those deposited at gox do. In fact, considering they can be algorithmically pegged and claimed on the mainchain they are even more real than the BTC at gox.

In both cases, inflation off the mainchain can not affect the mainchain so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

How were you able to somehow deceive all of the people in this thread into thinking you were somehow someway an intelligent person  Huh

This stuff you are saying right now is downright embarassing.

"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, 06:44:46 AM
 #17008

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


so did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already.  Cry

i already said i don't mind federated servers as it doesn't touch source and therefore doesn't change Bitcoin.

i may even use a federated server if it has good features.

 Cheesy

you are beyond retarded

when are you ever going to realize that federated peg create the same off-mainchain BTC scheme as SPVproof would? a sidechain, is a sidechain, is a sidechain. the method used to validate information and communicate between chains changes little. please don't give me that "institutionalized" or "systemized" bullshit.

whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.

So in one post federated servers are bad because they create speculative assets that diminishes Bitcoin Sound Money properties but in the next post you "may even use a federated server"

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Lay off the drinks brother




man, you are one insolent kid.

i keep emphasizing the SPVproof b/c that is indeed what i'm against b/c it changes source, not SC's in general.  you're unable to ascertain that given all the posts i've made about this?  sheesh.

federated servers aren't really even on my radar as ppl are free to do whatever they want in their private communities as long as they don't come begging to change source to profit from their business model.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:51:07 AM
 #17009

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.


let me have you answer that question.

what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin?

Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains

the SIDECHAINS will break Bitcoins core foundation which is the link btwn its currency unit and its blockchain.  this by itself will be inflationary as we will no longer have a functioning system as value gets drained away to speculative SC's (speculative in the sense of not being BTC anymore).  off chain systems don't inflate Bitcoin as those BTC deposited at a gox lumped address, for example, still exist on the Bitcoin blockchain.  the orderbooks can do their stuff but it is not inflationary to Bitcoin.

FTFY.

Off chain systems can be equally speculative and drain away value in very much the same way as sidechains would.

Additionally, bitcoins locked on sidechains exist in the same way those deposited at gox do. In fact, considering they can be algorithmically pegged and claimed on the mainchain they are even more real than the BTC at gox.

In both cases, inflation off the mainchain can not affect the mainchain so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

How were you able to somehow deceive all of the people in this thread into thinking you were somehow someway an intelligent person  Huh

This stuff you are saying right now is downright embarassing.

this is where you are very wrong.

the SPVproof allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address. 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:52:49 AM
 #17010

man, you are one insolent kid.

i keep emphasizing the SPVproof b/c that is indeed what i'm against b/c it changes source, not SC's in general.  you're unable to ascertain that given all the posts i've made about this?  sheesh.

federated servers aren't really even on my radar as ppl are free to do whatever they want in their private communities as long as they don't come begging to change source to profit from their business model.

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear


"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, 06:55:35 AM
 #17011

man, you are one insolent kid.

i keep emphasizing the SPVproof b/c that is indeed what i'm against b/c it changes source, not SC's in general.  you're unable to ascertain that given all the posts i've made about this?  sheesh.

federated servers aren't really even on my radar as ppl are free to do whatever they want in their private communities as long as they don't come begging to change source to profit from their business model.

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear



no, that's just been your misperception of my argument.  it's ALWAYS been about changing source code.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:56:50 AM
 #17012

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address. 

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

"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, 06:59:16 AM
 #17013

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.  

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

i'm not sure what you think you're fixing.

it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away.  inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:01:36 AM
 #17014

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear

no, that's just been your misperception of my argument.  it's ALWAYS been about changing source code.

OH IS THAT RIGHT

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code.

So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you......







.... sold your Bitcoins already?

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

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:05:19 AM
 #17015

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

You cook the stuff yourself?


allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.

You sound like Peter Schiff with the appeals to the 'Sound Money' sloganeering.

Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:06:19 AM
 #17016

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.  

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

i'm not sure what you think you're fixing.

it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away.  inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing.

LOL you still don't get it do you? Notice the ol' SPVProof/Federated Sidechains switcharoo? See how it fits perfectly in there and remains true?

Got it? Probably not.... Undecided

Lemme pull the same ol' trick :

it matters not whether the sidechain maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got locked to the sidechain was always there or got "burned" away.  inflation applies to what was happening with scBTC on the sidechain which is not the same thing.

 Cool cool no?

"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, 07:07:51 AM
 #17017

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear

no, that's just been your misperception of my argument.  it's ALWAYS been about changing source code.

OH IS THAT RIGHT

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code.

So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you......







.... sold your Bitcoins already?

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:08:00 AM
 #17018

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  Cheesy

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

You cook the stuff yourself?

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

"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, 07:11:02 AM
 #17019

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:14:57 AM
 #17020


Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.



huh?  why would you think multi sig would be a threat?
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 ... 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!