Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 07:11:59 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 ... 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] 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2008819 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
 #17341

In this scenario miners will MM 100% of these chains because they have considerable economic incentive to do so. What you are suggesting is that they will forfeit a percentage of their revenue for obscure reasons.
This is the same argument PoS systems to explain their security model.

You've either proved that PoS is equivalent to PoW for distributed consensus, or you're advocating replacing Bitcoin with a PoS system under the guise of an upgrade.
1510989119
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510989119

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510989119
Reply with quote  #2

1510989119
Report to moderator
Satoshi is no god. He did not come down from the mountain with 10 golden rules engraved in stone for no one to question.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1510989119
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510989119

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510989119
Reply with quote  #2

1510989119
Report to moderator
1510989119
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510989119

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510989119
Reply with quote  #2

1510989119
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 12:11:57 AM
 #17342

Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i think this is where we agree; if we are going to use SC's at all.  of course, there's always OT as well.

Yes.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bingo!  we have a Winner!

If you look at Peter R's three scenarios and my comments (I hoped someone else would point this out...) there is not really that much difference between sidechains and altcoins. The sidechains' promoters just want to get a flying start. In my opinion, they won't. The economics does not support it.

 Huh

There is absolutely a most fundamental difference. Sidechains, unlike altcoins, derive their value and their scarcity from the Bitcoin mainchain. This enables users to claim a 1:1 stake in any sidechain they are interested in, unlike with altcoins

The sidechain scBTS's are a different form of money. Much like the warehouse receipts for gold, just like you said earlier. They will have a different value if they are allowed to float. If not, as with the peg (there will always be a bit of resistance between the two, just like with gold certificates, it takes at least some time and some cost to deposit and retrieve the gold). The idea that you can take the bitcoins off the blockchain and shove them around, is wrong. You can only have the bitcoins, or deposit them, manually with trust as in a bank, or automatically with the sidechain.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 18, 2014, 12:46:21 AM
 #17343

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.  

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin.  

Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives

this is new, in Bitcoin land, to use 100% of your mining power you had to forfeit 100% of your income and pay for the energy needed to be a malicious miner, in the post SC BTC world you can use 100% of your mining power and attack the network, while still earning tx fees on other chains, these kind of speculative attacks was not possible before, its just labour and gold rigging, on the protocol level. its will always be profitable.
Hmm...
It seems that in later years (with smaller coinbase TX block rewards) under the scenario of a very successful MM SC, the miner may be 51% the MC and mining the SC profitably without significant opportunity costs.
Since SPV is a soft fork, they could be 51%ing MC without supporting SPV on the MC and maliciously unlocking BTC from the SC.

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
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 01:03:54 AM
 #17344

The same value can not be held simultaneously in the main chain and in a side chain.

But the value of the sidechain is derived from the mainchain and so the scarcity and ledger is respected.

This is a very interesting theoretical question: "where is the value stored for a sidechain?"  

blah blah blah

Wow, you can describe all that in one line:  The price change will be proportional to the flow derivative.  

In other words, if BTC was moving (and would have continued to move) into the sidechain, the SC price when "broken" will rise.  If BTC is moving out of the sidechain the price will fall.

If you are still confused think about modelling it.  You would best model this by creating "value" as an immaterial quantity.  Each chain HAS a value (essentially a market cap, which is price * quantity), based on its usefulness.  If 2 chains are pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed in price, so quantity must change -- that is BTC is transmuted from one chain to another.  If 2 chains are not pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed by moving quantity so price must change.  This idea is fundamental; it applies to all commodities and products where you can transform one to another.



the whole point that Peter R is trying to make is that with SC's, value gets "shared" btwn MC and all SC's.  with the potential of being "severed" or "fragmented".  

we don't want that with Bitcoin.  we want it ALL on the mainchain.  we want all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table.

who here wants to share value with Truthcoin?



Cypherdoc your reasoning is completely flawed.  First of all, I know that you aren't an engineer, but you still you should be able to understand  that it CANT be ALL on the mainchain.  There are diametrically opposed requirements.  Like anonymity vs. public spending accountability.  Like handling vast numbers of txns per second vs. keeping all transactions forever.  Like blockchain spam vs. document timestamping.  There are plenty of things with diametrically opposed requirements in life, like sleeping (darkness) and reading a book (bright light); its unrealistic to imagine no 2 applications will emerge in a space which covers the entire concept of economic activity.

Why have all prior altcoins failed?  Simply because they're all essentially the same.  Different POW?  Come on, what end user cares?  Bitcoin 2.0 (assets)?  Colored coins is good enough, but the market is not mature enough for anyone to care right now.  

You may argue that there will never emerge a use case that is both compelling and that Bitcoin cannot handle.  Ok in that case there will be no sidechains, because Metcalf's law, etc and so the functionality will simply sit unused, and eventually be deprecated.  There is no drawback to this.

But if a use case DOES emerge, the only way to pull that value into Bitcoin is via sidechains -- because with a sidechain the Bitcoin 21million scarcity token can be applied to that use case.

You need to contemplate what you cannot contemplate, not make decisions only based on what you know.

So the ONLY way to get "all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table" is via sidechains.


my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 01:11:11 AM
 #17345

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.  

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin.  

Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives

this is new, in Bitcoin land, to use 100% of your mining power you had to forfeit 100% of your income and pay for the energy needed to be a malicious miner, in the post SC BTC world you can use 100% of your mining power and attack the network, while still earning tx fees on other chains, these kind of speculative attacks was not possible before, its just labour and gold rigging, on the protocol level. its will always be profitable.
Hmm...
It seems that in later years (with smaller coinbase TX block rewards) under the scenario of a very successful MM SC, the miner may be 51% the MC and mining the SC profitably without significant opportunity costs.
Since SPV is a soft fork, they could be 51%ing MC without supporting SPV on the MC and maliciously unlocking BTC from the SC.

I hadn't thought of it like that, but yes it may take a while to unwind the locked BTC, if it could happen. I presumed we'd be left with the SC and Bitcoin intact, and just manipulate the market by stopping (or slowing) the flow in and out at opportune moments.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 01:53:44 AM
 #17346

In this scenario miners will MM 100% of these chains because they have considerable economic incentive to do so. What you are suggesting is that they will forfeit a percentage of their revenue for obscure reasons.
This is the same argument PoS systems to explain their security model.

You've either proved that PoS is equivalent to PoW for distributed consensus, or you're advocating replacing Bitcoin with a PoS system under the guise of an upgrade.

I guess so, except it takes considerably more resources

"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 18, 2014, 02:02:51 AM
 #17347

Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

i think this is where we agree; if we are going to use SC's at all.  of course, there's always OT as well.

Yes.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Bingo!  we have a Winner!

If you look at Peter R's three scenarios and my comments (I hoped someone else would point this out...) there is not really that much difference between sidechains and altcoins. The sidechains' promoters just want to get a flying start. In my opinion, they won't. The economics does not support it.

 Huh

There is absolutely a most fundamental difference. Sidechains, unlike altcoins, derive their value and their scarcity from the Bitcoin mainchain. This enables users to claim a 1:1 stake in any sidechain they are interested in, unlike with altcoins

The sidechain scBTS's are a different form of money. Much like the warehouse receipts for gold, just like you said earlier. They will have a different value if they are allowed to float. If not, as with the peg (there will always be a bit of resistance between the two, just like with gold certificates, it takes at least some time and some cost to deposit and retrieve the gold). The idea that you can take the bitcoins off the blockchain and shove them around, is wrong. You can only have the bitcoins, or deposit them, manually with trust as in a bank, or automatically with the sidechain.

A different form is right.

Currency issued out of a reserve chain. The difference in value that you propose (in the case of a peg) is experience equally by all the users of the sidechain. The point is whatever value is assigned to the chain is derived from a user's stake in BTC.

Moreover atomic swaps in an optimal and liquid market will allow for near instant reversibility or transfer of assets.

Also, if no user uses the chain then there are effectively no coins on the chain. That is very much unlike altcoins vers units are either premined or distributed following some parameters.


"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 18, 2014, 02:05:18 AM
 #17348


Do you not recognize there are applications that demand more decentralization than federation/oracles/OT can provide?

Would you trust any lesser decentralized schemes with money functions of Bitcoin that are not supported by the mainchain?

Please STFU this used to be a nice thread to follow.

I agree, that is until cypherdoc polluted it with his FUD and misinformation.

By the way there's at least 4 pages of discussion on sidechains that were created today without any of my participation so maybe you should stay away for awhile if you don't care to discuss them.

what an idiot
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 02:16:07 AM
 #17349

The same value can not be held simultaneously in the main chain and in a side chain.

But the value of the sidechain is derived from the mainchain and so the scarcity and ledger is respected.

This is a very interesting theoretical question: "where is the value stored for a sidechain?"  

blah blah blah

Wow, you can describe all that in one line:  The price change will be proportional to the flow derivative.  

In other words, if BTC was moving (and would have continued to move) into the sidechain, the SC price when "broken" will rise.  If BTC is moving out of the sidechain the price will fall.

If you are still confused think about modelling it.  You would best model this by creating "value" as an immaterial quantity.  Each chain HAS a value (essentially a market cap, which is price * quantity), based on its usefulness.  If 2 chains are pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed in price, so quantity must change -- that is BTC is transmuted from one chain to another.  If 2 chains are not pegged, changes to the value cannot be expressed by moving quantity so price must change.  This idea is fundamental; it applies to all commodities and products where you can transform one to another.



the whole point that Peter R is trying to make is that with SC's, value gets "shared" btwn MC and all SC's.  with the potential of being "severed" or "fragmented".  

we don't want that with Bitcoin.  we want it ALL on the mainchain.  we want all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table.

who here wants to share value with Truthcoin?



Cypherdoc your reasoning is completely flawed.  First of all, I know that you aren't an engineer, but you still you should be able to understand  that it CANT be ALL on the mainchain.  There are diametrically opposed requirements.  Like anonymity vs. public spending accountability.  Like handling vast numbers of txns per second vs. keeping all transactions forever.  Like blockchain spam vs. document timestamping.  There are plenty of things with diametrically opposed requirements in life, like sleeping (darkness) and reading a book (bright light); its unrealistic to imagine no 2 applications will emerge in a space which covers the entire concept of economic activity.

Why have all prior altcoins failed?  Simply because they're all essentially the same.  Different POW?  Come on, what end user cares?  Bitcoin 2.0 (assets)?  Colored coins is good enough, but the market is not mature enough for anyone to care right now.  

You may argue that there will never emerge a use case that is both compelling and that Bitcoin cannot handle.  Ok in that case there will be no sidechains, because Metcalf's law, etc and so the functionality will simply sit unused, and eventually be deprecated.  There is no drawback to this.

But if a use case DOES emerge, the only way to pull that value into Bitcoin is via sidechains -- because with a sidechain the Bitcoin 21million scarcity token can be applied to that use case.

You need to contemplate what you cannot contemplate, not make decisions only based on what you know.

So the ONLY way to get "all outsiders to be forced to "buy in" to BTC for their seat at the table" is via sidechains.


my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

if you give it time to grow it can be that ultimate money.  but by breaking the security link btwn the unit and blockchain, how can this be achieved.  the SC's will be less secure and different ledgers.  they are not extensions of Bitcoin.  they will be speculative.  we want the same things but i don't see how SC's do this.

please explain your vision of atomic trustless exchange.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 02:21:35 AM
 #17350

brg444, i see the game is changing, is this the shitty job you were taking about? "Reactveritsing™"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHp5_Gcpb9Q
I believe the euphemism in the industry is called a Digital Influencers.

oh hell they have teems of there guys who's going to pay for all this advertising.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tabnloz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 962


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 02:22:06 AM
 #17351

Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

And, accordingly on Twitter, his new online store accepts bitcoin.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 02:23:11 AM
 #17352

an analogy to the self contained financial system that i envision with Bitcoin is gold.

there is a finite amount of gold circulating throughout the world.  it's stored, it's used, it's supply is theoretically immutable.  none of it gets "transformed" to other speculative assets at any time.  and for 5000 yrs it served as the basis for a sound money system.  

by promoting the transformation of BTC units over to "different less secure ledgers" which now seems to be accepted here by even brg444, how is Bitcoins Sound Money function sustained?

There are plenty of examples of gold "side chains".  The GLD ETF derives its value from gold.  Egold once derived its value from gold.  In fact anyone who owns any kind of note that is redeemable for gold is participating in a gold "side chain".  Perhaps the most infamous example is the USD which has also lost its peg to gold.  These pegs were eventually lost because of central points of failure, but the physical gold remained unharmed.  Bitcoin distributes these central points of failure and if side chains fail, the bitcoin will remain.  Of course none of the elemental properties of gold were changed to create gold "side chains" and that is why we should go the federated route with bitcoin.

the bitcoin can be lost in a SC failure though.  i think confidence is eroded in the entire system certainly in the case of those owners who lose their scBTC.

Bitcoin can also be locked in for a length of time by the miners, remember merge mining can mine empty blocks on the SideChain locking it without forfeiting there mining revenue earned on other SideChains or Bitcoin.  

Which implies they forfeit the mining revenue of the chain they are attacking. If users decide that this chain is valuable to them it is in the miners best interest to preserve their economic incentives

this is new, in Bitcoin land, to use 100% of your mining power you had to forfeit 100% of your income and pay for the energy needed to be a malicious miner, in the post SC BTC world you can use 100% of your mining power and attack the network, while still earning tx fees on other chains, these kind of speculative attacks was not possible before, its just labour and gold rigging, on the protocol level. its will always be profitable.
Hmm...
It seems that in later years (with smaller coinbase TX block rewards) under the scenario of a very successful MM SC, the miner may be 51% the MC and mining the SC profitably without significant opportunity costs.
Since SPV is a soft fork, they could be 51%ing MC without supporting SPV on the MC and maliciously unlocking BTC from the SC.

don't forget the other way around is even more likely.  attacking the SC is costless in that the attack is temporary and doesn't involve destroying your main source of revenue, the MC.  there is greater incentive as well as you will be stealing scBTC which can be converted back to BTC.  you can also short scBTC if their is a market exchange.  you also wouldn't lose the value of your mining hardware investment like you would attacking your main revenue source, the MC.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 02:23:41 AM
 #17353

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.



+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

Quote
all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

"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 18, 2014, 02:23:48 AM
 #17354

Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

And, accordingly on Twitter, his new online store accepts bitcoin.


wat!?  someone should call him out on that one.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 02:33:23 AM
 #17355

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.



+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

Quote
all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 02:41:34 AM
 #17356

brg444.  i could give a shit about Bitcoin encompassing those pitiful little markets to the left with SC's.  i want the Big Kahuna on the far right.  those amts are $/d:

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 03:13:06 AM
 #17357

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.



+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

Quote
all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.

 Cheesy

my friend. the cost is not time or convenience but trust.

if you want to maintain Bitcoin as Money only the trust for the ledger matters.

to preserve the trust, you have to, as you say,discourage any inflation and devaluation of its value.

by conceding the handling of transactions and proof verification to anyone but the network you forfeit trust.

by conceding the trust to a significant portion of the economy to off-chain schemes and federation of servers/oracles/voting pools you necessarily create more risk and enable possibilities of fractional reserve schemes.

"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
Alonzo Ewing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 816


Machine Learning & AI - Trustless Ledger System


View Profile
November 18, 2014, 03:13:35 AM
 #17358

Jim Rickards in an interview re: China debt, global depression (lower % growth than could be achieved - the Keynesian def) and timing of the next crisis

Anyways, speaking about a system reset, the last question was:

Do you think such scenarios make people more optimistic about crypto currencies like Bitcoins?

I see the rise of crypto-currencies as a sign of waning confidence in traditional currencies, such as the dollar. I expect the trend towards alternative currencies, such as Bitcoin, to grow as central banks continue to fail in their efforts to manipulate asset values.

http://internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/The-debt-problem-in-China-is-not-hype.html#sthash.XPW1qNhD.dpuf

Nice find.

The back pedaling is  almost complete.

And, accordingly on Twitter, his new online store accepts bitcoin.


wat!?  someone should call him out on that one.

Yeah, he's pretending he was always pro-Bitcoin.  At least have the integrity to admit you were wrong, Jim.

 
⦁⚫⦁
     ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊▊ Trustless Ledger System ▊▊▊▊▊▊▊
  S H A R P E  C A P I T A L 
 

                 ▄▀▀▄
                 ▀▄▄▀
                 █
      ▄▀▀▄      █
      ▀▄▄▀     █
      █  █    █
     █    █  █
    █     ▄▀▀▄
   █      ▀▄▄▀
▄▀▀▄     
▀▄▄▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
.
Investing with AI & Machine Learning
.
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ⦁⚫⦁ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄  read our Whitepaper ▄▄▄▄▄▄
Bitcointalk Twitter Telegram  Slack
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
⦁⚫⦁
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 03:21:38 AM
 #17359

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money.  all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.  Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model?  it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here.  Gold or USD is also money.  Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer.  These features make it better money.  But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide).   Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it.  By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

 To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value.  But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold.  I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous.  At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies.  Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.



+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

Quote
all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's  

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc.  you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only.  a digital form of gold.  the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views.  in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well.  but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire.  the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing.  we need a better money like Bitcoin.  imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing.  Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day.  the gold market is $8T.  if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon.  but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.

 Cheesy

my friend. the cost is not time or convenience but trust.

if you want to maintain Bitcoin as Money only the trust for the ledger matters.

to preserve the trust, you have to, as you say,discourage any inflation and devaluation of its value.

by conceding the handling of transactions and proof verification to anyone but the network you forfeit trust.

by conceding the trust to a significant portion of the economy to off-chain schemes and federation of servers/oracles/voting pools you necessarily create more risk and enable possibilities of fractional reserve schemes.


i agree with your first four sentences, not the last.

it's how to accomplish this where we disagree.  by maintaining Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage which has been aptly proven over the last 6 yrs, we have accomplished enough trust to attract all the investment we're seeing currently.  that is what is important.  nothing that happens on gox-like ledgers matters to Bitcoin and its future success.  none of those BTC ever left the blockchain and remain in circulation somewhere in someones hands.  any scBTC that get lost in an attack or SC failure get lost forever.  but the real problem is the offramp; the spvp which breaks the sound money function and ruins everything for everyone.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 18, 2014, 03:31:53 AM
 #17360

as i see it, SC's are a temptation to make fast money thru inflation thru the indirect method of breaking Bitcoin's Sound Money function using the spvp which allows transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets (anything not BTC).  except that Blockstream will be in the best position to make USD's from that.  the rest of us will have to scramble to figure out which chain contains the most value.

the bigger reward, but longer battle, will be achieved by maintaining a self contained Bitcoin financial system that inextricably links the currency unit to its blockchain.  this will be much easier for us, all we have to do is hodl.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 ... 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!