Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 01:04:42 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 ... 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] 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013406 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:24:45 AM
 #17061

p

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.

What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore  Angry How dare you !  Cry


They're one and the same point, I don't understand your pitch?

My pitch?

My pitch is that cypherclown has been championing the danger of breaking the holy link between the BTC unit and its blockchain for the past 50 pages but now that he FINALLY realizes federated server sidechains creates this exact mechanism and that these are implementable natively he has yet again moved the goal post to another fallacious argument.


There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.

1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.

You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,


1)  The incentive structure has nearly zero to do with the 'hardness' of the money.  But if you want to talk incentive structure, talk about block size since it is completely related to transaction fees.  That is one of the reasons why I consider the block size to be a very significant system level change which influences both the defensive capability of the system and it's economics.  Much bigger than a soft-fork script extension which nobody is forced to use an which does not alter the basic operating principles of Bitcoin almost at all.

2)  Seems at least as ethical as the Bitcoin Foundation charging $100,000 for a seat at the big-boy's table and paying one of the principle developers.  Or BitPay paying another.  As long as there is transparency I've got nothing against these kinds of things.  TBF leaves a lot to be desired vis-a-vis transparency and the status as a trade group makes this lack of transparency much more problematic to me.

As far as I'm concerned brg444 has been quite clear in most of his arguments (note that the above are my own...I'm not trying to re-iterate his.)  Indeed, his grasp of Bitcoin is suspiciously good for a newbie which is the only argument I can see for cypherdoc's meltdown into raving paranoia.


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.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:28:54 AM
 #17062

you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit.

I think, you can't stop them too. :-)

Quote
 plus, federated servers don't change the source code and force all of us to scramble to adjust our strategies based on a disruption of the mining equilibrium as well as user disincentives to further utilize Bitcoin as Sound Money as it will have been broken by an SPVproof.

Bitcoin is not source code. Bitcoin is protocol and blockchain.

1. Source code of software (what works with bitcoin blockchain) is changing every day. (Bitcoin-core, Bitcoin-qt, Electum, MyCelium ... )
Bitcoin(in term of sotware) is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part.

2. Everybody can change and distribute "free software" to anyone and for any purpose.

@Adrian-x  Yes it is ethical that for-profit company creates software. Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, HP, Samsung ...
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:34:35 AM
 #17063

you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit.

I think, you can't stop them too. :-)

Quote
 plus, federated servers don't change the source code and force all of us to scramble to adjust our strategies based on a disruption of the mining equilibrium as well as user disincentives to further utilize Bitcoin as Sound Money as it will have been broken by an SPVproof.

Bitcoin is not source code. Bitcoin is protocol and blockchain.

1. Source code of software (what works with bitcoin blockchain) is changing every day. (Bitcoin-core, Bitcoin-qt, Electum, MyCelium ... )
Bitcoin(in term of sotware) is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part.

2. Everybody can change and distribute "free software" to anyone and for any purpose.

@Adrian-x  Yes it is ethical that for-profit company creates software. Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, HP, Samsung ...

 Cheesy

It's amazing, Odalv, even in his limited english, makes more sense than cypherclown and adrian


"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
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:50:42 AM
 #17064

Dude seriously ur still here?

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 11:35:53 AM
 #17065

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 11:52:02 AM
 #17066

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 12:20:25 PM
 #17067

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?

Any side chain can of course be implemented entirely without Bitcoin at all.  Perhaps, some would not be viable as federated systems, such as those needing a true zero trust environment and wanting to also hold BTC in their chain.  
Its not really a zero trust application if you are trusting an oracle.  Those would be fairly esoteric though, probably most of the ones that are being seriously contemplated would be accepted with a federated system, with the exception of those that may be requiring extraordinary security.  If it is something where folks don't trust that the federating entity isn't their enemy in disguise.  It would be one trust removed to have the protocol change.

Without the Bitcoin network running the verification, why use Bitcoin at all though?  Might as well use an Altcoin as the "separated currency".
It would be a better bootstrap to prove the case anyway.

Though some of the issues are insidious and won't manifest their effects until there are a lot of locked coin.


Federated systems work fine until the federated server (or the Bitcoin network) goes away.
Bitcoin works fine, until the Bitcoin network goes away.

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, 12:41:16 PM
 #17068

do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems?  it just shows how young and immature you are.

they just laugh at you like i do.


Soluvox is a Quebec company specializing in the management of customer communications.
Maybe they are more into "antisocial media" than "social media"?

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, 12:47:19 PM
 #17069

2. Considering, as I've explained,  that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE.

It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology.

Is Blockstream only writing OPEN SOURCE code forever and into the future?

Or is your argument that Blockstream can not benefit from changing the Bitcoin protocol to suit their business because Bitcoin is open source?
(This it seems would be a weird thing to claim.)

There wasn't a possibility to keep for themselves this revolutionary technology.
It was funded by a EU grant to an Israel academic team, and the results published and presented openly at Bitcoin2013 conference, and elsewhere.
I was in the room for that presentation, as was gmaxwell and many others.  The technology is open, it is the implementation/company that isn't.

I wish them every success.

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, 01:09:50 PM
 #17070

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.

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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 01:28:24 PM
 #17071

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.


http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Quote
There are important reasons to avoid the introduction of single points of failure:

Trusting individual signers does not only mean expecting them to behave honestly; they must
also never be compromised, never leak secret key material, never be coerced, and never stop
participating in the network
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 01:34:18 PM
 #17072

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.


http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Quote
There are important reasons to avoid the introduction of single points of failure:

Trusting individual signers does not only mean expecting them to behave honestly; they must
also never be compromised, never leak secret key material, never be coerced, and never stop
participating in the network

Yes.  It is very clear to everyone that implementing an OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY into the Bitcoin protocol is good for Blockstream, and good for the Side Chains.
It is less clear that it is good for the Bitcoin protocol.

Then when "but we can do everything with federation and oracle already today, so we should just do it" is added to the argument, it makes anyone with a wary eye look at this as if it were a slimy sales technique.

If it is not needed, drop the issue and stick with OP_RETURN.  If it is needed, our job is to show why it is not win/lose but win/win.

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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 01:39:00 PM
 #17073

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.


http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Quote
There are important reasons to avoid the introduction of single points of failure:

Trusting individual signers does not only mean expecting them to behave honestly; they must
also never be compromised, never leak secret key material, never be coerced, and never stop
participating in the network

Yes.  It is very clear to everyone that implementing an OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY into the Bitcoin protocol is good for Blockstream, and good for the Side Chains.
It is less clear that it is good for the Bitcoin protocol.

Then when "but we can do everything with federation and oracle already today, so we should just do it" is added to the argument, it makes anyone with a wary eye look at this as if it were a slimy sales technique.

If it is not needed, drop the issue.  If it is needed, our job is to show why it is not win/lose but win/win.

I think it is good for everyone. And everyone will vote with their money in the end. :-)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 01:53:29 PM
 #17074

If it is not needed, drop the issue and stick with OP_RETURN.  If it is needed, our job is to show why it is not win/lose but win/win.

What will do OP_RETURN ?
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 01:58:42 PM
 #17075

I think it is good for everyone. And everyone will vote with their money in the end. :-)

Lots of people think this.  Lots don't.  
Most of the people will just follow along with the majority authority, whether it is right or isn't right.

It may take a much longer time to find out whether it is or isn't good, than it takes for these decisions to be made, so there won't be any going back.


Smaller stakeholders may be more inclined to just say "hey its only an experiment, lets try it and see if it works".  It remains an important test (to me at least) whether the larger stakeholders would agree.

So our task is to show how it is safe, if we can.
We do this by analyzing the risks, not by pretending there aren't any.
This analysis is not yet begun.  We don't even have a good test proposal yet.

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, 01:59:48 PM
 #17076

If it is not needed, drop the issue and stick with OP_RETURN.  If it is needed, our job is to show why it is not win/lose but win/win.

What will do OP_RETURN ?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=676703.msg7682680#msg7682680

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, 03:03:37 PM
 #17077

Has anyone else noticed that we have won a major, major concession from brg444 inadvertently?

For the first 150 pages or so of this debate he has argued that SC's are one and the same ledger as bitcoin. He had contorted that definition with terms like "extensions"  or "sub ledgers"  in his rush to defend Blockstream and SC's .

Now,  for the last 50  pages or so he has inadvertently given up that battle and now inexplicably agrees with with every argument I've used assuming that they are in fact different ledgers.  This is what happens when you're blindy  defending something based not on principle but emotion.

And that is a major victory. Certainly one worth pointing out. The different ledger theory is a major pillar of the objection against SC's due to their insecurity and potential for manipulation.  
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 03:13:22 PM
 #17078

Has anyone else noticed that we have won a major, major concession from brg444 inadvertently?

For the first 150 pages or so of this debate he has argued that SC's are one and the same ledger as bitcoin. He had contorted that definition with terms like "extensions"  or "sub ledgers"  in his rush to defend Blockstream and SC's .

Now,  for the last 50  pages or so he has inadvertently given up that battle and now inexplicably agrees with with every argument I've used assuming that they are in fact different ledgers.  This is what happens when you're blindy  defending something based not on principle but emotion.

And that is a major victory. Certainly one worth pointing out. The different ledger theory is a major pillar of the objection against SC's due to their insecurity and potential for manipulation.  

I have noticed that the arguments for the sidechais restlessly wanders all over the place.

Is the sidechain discussion done?


thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 03:18:44 PM
 #17079

I am only able to sample this thread lately due to time constraints so I apologize if my responses have already been covered.

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.

But its not really separated is it?  The BTC unit remains on the mainchain, "locked", essentially backing the sidechain.  Its like paper gold being backed by phys, except that it impossible to hide naked paper.  As a one-time holder of phyz gold and silver, I imagine that you'd agree that problems with the paper are unlikely to significantly affect the actual gold in your vault, except perhaps by removing value that the paper conferred (that is, many people think that gold ETFs drove the rise due by opening a larger market, and of course that additional value also floated phys).

Blockstream registered as a for-profit entity earlier this year and they have $15M investment. their biz model is constructing SC's for other entities, namely corporations, banks, gvts, anyone willing to pay for the tech. in essence, they are now in the exact same position as Mastercoin, Bitshares, CP in terms of competing to mold Bitcoin into profitability for themselves.

their business model is dependent on inserting a change into the source code called a SPV proof. this would allow BTC to flow off the highly secure Bitcoin blockchain ledger into these SC businesses where sidechain ledgers rules will be determined however the business wants and will be inherently less secure as they will not be merge mined or even directly mined. they will require trust and will ensure security most likely by signing off on blocks as they are constructed with their own signing keys.

I would prefer the devs work independently too, but reality isn't perfect.  But again, the BTC are not "flowing off" the Bitcoin ledger... BTC is simply being used to transparently back another chain.

there will be thousand of entities who will bolt themselves onto Bitcoin via these SPV proofs. this will in effect allow a siphoning of value, BTC units, out of Bitcoin itself. how will Bitcoin miners make their required income from tx fees if all these BTC have moved offchain to sidechains? how will Bitcoin maintain its monetary function if all these BTC have moved to sidechains and have been converted to all manner of speculative assets?

If there really will be 1000 entities who need sidechains, we now have 1000 additional uses for Bitcoin which will massively increase demand for coins and resulting in a huge price increase.  This is a great problem to have.

We already imagine that if Bitcoin gains a large pct of the world's txns, it may not scale, resulting in high txn fees, and therefore may end up being used mostly for large transfers.  In your 1000 entities scenario, the only difference is that instead of large opaque transfers (we don't know anything about the BTC transfer just that it happened), we can see that X coins moved from SC A to SC B.

But running a SC does have overhead and risk.  It seems obvious to me that companies will use the mainchain if possible (that is, it scales and can capture the transaction).

You can't stop innovation.  If in the SC future there will be 1000 sidechains backed with Bitcoin, in the non-SC future there will be 1000 altcoins, and Bitcoin's market cap will be 1000 times lower then it could have been.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 03:31:12 PM
 #17080

I think it is good for everyone. And everyone will vote with their money in the end. :-)

Lots of people think this.  Lots don't.  
Most of the people will just follow along with the majority authority, whether it is right or isn't right.

It may take a much longer time to find out whether it is or isn't good, than it takes for these decisions to be made, so there won't be any going back.


Smaller stakeholders may be more inclined to just say "hey its only an experiment, lets try it and see if it works".  It remains an important test (to me at least) whether the larger stakeholders would agree.

So our task is to show how it is safe, if we can.

We do this by analyzing the risks, not by pretending there aren't any.
This analysis is not yet begun.  We don't even have a good test proposal yet.

I think there are 2 things:

1. if OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is threat to Bitcoin  b/c I did not find any.

2. How safe are BTC locked in MC by OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  => but we do not have enough information about implementation (at least I do not have)
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 ... 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!