Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2017, 11:25:14 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1980048 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:15:46 AM
 #17481

We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable.

Quote
Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.

spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature)

spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM.
[/quote]

 Huh

They're two totally different things and both work in tandem. What you just said makes no sense

SPVP is absolutely not vaporware. It might not be ready to implement as we are speaking but there are real maths behind it.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506165914
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506165914

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506165914
Reply with quote  #2

1506165914
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:15:55 AM
 #17482

Redecentralization: building a robust cryptocurrency developer network

https://blog.conformal.com/redecentralization-robust-developer-network/
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:20:10 AM
 #17483

Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves.
You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day.

Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream?

well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013.  how visionary is that?

 Roll Eyes

A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed.

You really want to debate who is the visionary here?

I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages

you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

Me, zerg, Erdogan, molecular, Peter, ZB, NL, notme, even Adrian.

Anyone who hasn't parrotted the same blatantly false assumptions for the last 200 pages despite being proven wrong multiple time by multiple people.

I am totally uninterested in the respectability of the people behind blockstream, the protocol they invent should be able to stand on its own legs. Even satoshi could be a total jerk for all I care. I depend on his whitepaper and the system as implemented.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:20:49 AM
 #17484

We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable.

Quote
Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.

spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature)

spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM.

 Huh

They're two totally different things and both work in tandem. What you just said makes no sense

SPVP is absolutely not vaporware. It might not be ready to implement as we are speaking but there are real maths behind it.
[/quote]

i meant a SC running it's own security scheme but connected to MC via spvp.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:23:23 AM
 #17485

I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?"  The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion.

I think the probability of the 2-way peg being severed is actually central to the definition of "sidechain" vs. "altcoin," and for practical purposes determines investment behavior in the chain.

On one end of the spectrum, if a sidechain's 2-way peg can be severed at the whim of the sidechain devs, it would essentially be an altcoin and would presumably attract about as much investment as altcoins do (not a threat to Bitcoin).

At the other end of the spectrum, if it's mathematically impossible to sever the 2wp, then it is a true sidechain and the value seems to always remain with the Bitcoin ledger (not a threat to Bitcoin, at least not for this reason).

For cases in between, we cannot really call it a true sidechain, and by the same token we cannot really expect substantial portions of the bitcoin holders to just jump over to the sidechain.

In other words, there's a reasoning error to watch out for here: insofar as the value that could be funneled over to the sidechain relies on the certainty that the 2wp will remain, the concern is self-defeating. If there is any shadow of possibility that the 2wp could be broken, it won't attract that many bitcoins - not much more than any altcoin; and if any sidechain does attract a large portion of the bitcoins, it will only be because the 2wp is as certain of a thing in investors' minds as Bitcoin itself is, which is an extremely high bar.

(This does still leave the possibility that the devs could hamstring Bitcoin deliberately to reduce confidence in Bitcoin to bring it in line with confidence in a not completely solid 2wp so that many people would switch despite some uncertainty. However, this is a much smaller argument to be making.)

Great post as usual, ZB.  I mostly1 agree: the amount of bitcoins that move to a sidechain will depend, in part, on the credibility of the 2-way peg.  And, realistically, it will probably take years for any sidechain to establish enough credibility to attract a significant amount of bitcoins (assuming OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is implemented, and even this could take a few years if it happens at all).  So I suspect any migration of economic activity away from the Blockchain to be slow and anti-climactic.    

Hypothetical Question: If we assume (perhaps unrealistically) that the 2-way peg is unbreakable and if we also assume (again, perhaps unrealistically) that the security of Bitcoin's blockchain remains unchanged with sidechains, what additional risks do sidechains impose?  The risks I can see are (a) that sidechains could be used as an "excuse" to avoid addressing Bitcoin's scalability, thereby making the likelihood of an uber sidechain absorbing all the bitcoin more likely (along with the possible shenanigans that such an event might entail), and (b) that it sets a precedent that soft-forking changes to add new "features" are OK.

1I think even if one assumes the 2-way peg is unbreakable, that value is still stored on the sidechain ledger (at least) in the extreme case where the majority of coins and economic activity take place on that sidechain.  If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger.


We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable.

Quote
Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.

spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature)

spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM.
spvp is vaporware created by you. I'll use OP_SIDECHAINVERIFY what is orthogonal to MM.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:26:20 AM
 #17486


There is no plausable reason to install such a cap.

Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted.



who's going to pay you to clone it and make a SC for it when no one from the Bitcoin community will use your SC since FantastiCOIN may be attractive to speculators precisely b/c it provides inflation?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:37:13 AM
 #17487


you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:41:01 AM
 #17488


you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown.

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 12:44:30 AM
 #17489


you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown.

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.
amen
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2014, 12:56:08 AM
 #17490

What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law".

Also, are we not assuming this sidechain is controlled by the government or else who exactly do this war time money go to? If so why should I trust government sidechain more than traditional government. They could just as easily change the rules after the fact.

And of course I would prefer to hold Bitcoin. I'm not the type of person who willingly fund war and consciously inflate the value of my holdings

By "made the law" it means it isn't voluntary.  Usually this works through both moral suasion, and force.  
No one in your country will accept your bitcoin or else they may be called a traitor.
People that you know have lost family members, your friends or your children are going off to fight to defend your home.
The authorities have let it be known that this is the only way you and your way of life will survive, and if you lose the battle you will be killed or enslaved because you have the wrong type hair/eyes/language whatever.

This sort of circumstance is the one regions typically find themselves in when there is a central bank scheme brewing up (or when one becomes abolished).
By not trading in your bitcoin for gov.inflation.coin you won't be able to spend them, and if your government wins the war, you have to hope then never discover your deceit for the rest of your days.  If they lose, and you survive, it is a different set of challenges.

It is easy to say what one might or might not do when not in the circumstance, but this method has been very successful throughout history on both wars of aggression and of defense for establishing central banks.

Paper money was innovated by the Huns... and so they conquered Asia.

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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:11:05 AM
 #17491

...
With altcoins we have that fear.  But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.  
...


Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here?

Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin.

It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment.


I hope that's right.




For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth.


You'd have to do your u1:1* clone before my FantastiCoin is widely accepted to be fantastic, otherwise it will have insurmountable network-effect.

* "u" for "Unlimited", since it's possible to put either a time or total supply-cap limit on a 1:1 exchange, which results in the same problem.


There is no plausable reason to install such a cap.

Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted.

I think you forget that 98.9% of people believe what the professionals tell them and 98.7% of the professionals believe a 2-3% inflation rate is good for the economy.

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

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:14:12 AM
 #17492


you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown.

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

Quote
But, note that on a Universal Exchange, the barriers to trading in-kind fall dramatically.  On a Universal Exchange I could just as easily swap stock for a car as I could stock for stock.  Or real estate for stock as easily real estate for real estate.  On a Universal Exchange, everything becomes readily tradable with everything else!

Bitcoins thus have value as a method for avoiding or diminishing the need for trust, and the expensive infrastructure built up to instill it, and not merely a collectible or as money.  Trust is valuable, and few things are more demonstrably trustworthy than a public blockchain.

...

In short, a Universal Exchange will facilitate a barter economy like the world has never seen.  For the first time, barter transactions will be nearly as easy as cash transactions (and in many cases even easier).  This will have a great many revolutionary impacts.  It will impact "trusted" third parties the most and soonest, but it will also impact governments, human relationships, law, accounting, economics, and a great many other fields.  And, perhaps most of all, it may just eventually make the whole concept of "money" unnecessary and obsolete.  With a Universal Exchange, a common currency, in the traditional sense of the word, isn't hardly necessary.

http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.html

"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 19, 2014, 01:17:20 AM
 #17493

...
With altcoins we have that fear.  But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.  
...


Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here?

Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin.

It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment.


I hope that's right.




For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth.


You'd have to do your u1:1* clone before my FantastiCoin is widely accepted to be fantastic, otherwise it will have insurmountable network-effect.

* "u" for "Unlimited", since it's possible to put either a time or total supply-cap limit on a 1:1 exchange, which results in the same problem.


There is no plausable reason to install such a cap.

Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted.

I think you forget that 98.9% of people believe what the professionals tell them and 98.7% of the professionals believe a 2-3% inflation rate is good for the economy.

Well then I suggest you and your friends start professionalCOIN with 2-3% inflation and have fun with that. Don't wait for sidechains. You can have a head start already and start accumulating.

May the best coin win!

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

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2014, 01:32:10 AM
 #17494

I am not a fan of Gavin's current Max Blocksize proposal.  

I've been following your scalability proposal in the Technical Discussion section.  You want to see the max block size adjusted based on blockchain feedback (closed loop), whereas Gavin proposes an open-loop solution.  One risk with Gavin's solution is that it assumes historical growth rates for internet bandwidth will continue moving forward in time.  One risk with your proposal is that it introduces another feedback term into what is surely a nonlinear system (right now the only feedback term is Bitcoin's difficulty adjustment).  

By the way, has anyone heard from DeathAndTaxes?  I'd love to hear his view on both sidechains and scalability.  

me too.

I've just checked his profile and his last login was on October 7th, last post on 29 of August...

D&T is struggling with banks with his exchange type company, not surprising that he is pretty busy.

On the MBS proposal topic.

The solutions I suggest for the scalability issue based on the Max_blocksize is more a hybrid of the two.

There are at least two problems with Gavin's proposal that are resolved very simply with mine.
1) What if the open-loop solution is too big and knocks lots of nodes off the network increasing centralization.
2) How do we know when the next time we need some central money planning decision authority to suggest a new target MAX_BLOCKSIZE?

Simply stated: We use a factor of the recent blocksize with adjustment restrictions to prevent burst abuse conditions (TX spam, etc) -the closed loop, and use an upper limit of the exponential solution -the open loop.
When they converge, then we know that it is time for whomever is the new consensus builder to propose something different (or to recognize that there is some other problem needing attention).

What this does (among other things) is it avoids the potential condition where we have solved scalability in other ways (such as side chains or something else) and typical block sizes are still in the 1-2MB range (decades from now) and the network of that time is more or less built around this expectation, lots of hobbyists, and we have very good resilience.
Then suddenly we get a bunch of 1GB blocks (because it is under the limit of the protocol) but folks aren't expecting it and we lose 7/8 of the nodes then running to this bandwidth attack.
Our children will look back at us and think we were idiots for not preventing this sort of thing when we had the chance.

Worse case scenario, it is only as bad as Gavin's proposal.
Best case scenario, we have a more effective backstop to prevent protocol abuse and encourage node running.

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 19, 2014, 01:33:53 AM
 #17495

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:37:01 AM
 #17496

...
With altcoins we have that fear.  But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.  
...


Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here?

Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin.

It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment.


I hope that's right.




For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth.


You'd have to do your u1:1* clone before my FantastiCoin is widely accepted to be fantastic, otherwise it will have insurmountable network-effect.

* "u" for "Unlimited", since it's possible to put either a time or total supply-cap limit on a 1:1 exchange, which results in the same problem.


There is no plausable reason to install such a cap.

Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted.

I think you forget that 98.9% of people believe what the professionals tell them and 98.7% of the professionals believe a 2-3% inflation rate is good for the economy.

Well then I suggest you and your friends start professionalCOIN with 2-3% inflation and have fun with that. Don't wait for sidechains. You can have a head start already and start accumulating.

May the best coin win!
we are the minority. I just what you to consider the consequences when the majority bolt on SC professionalCOIN. NewLiberty took it up a notch https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9587151#msg9587151 I was a little limited in my thinking, considering we'd always have peace.

I like the Bitcoin that can Stop war, the idea it can be used to fund it should be flushed out a little not dismissed.

Actually its quite fun to do i think if you are a paid professional digital influence you should learn about the Six Thinking Hats check out the link.  

we are doing the black hat stage at the moment, but your defending yellow hat ideas, your approach is very destructive.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 19, 2014, 01:37:46 AM
 #17497



BTW, this is the DAILY TX volume.

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
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:48:23 AM
 #17498


you're a legend in your own mind.

and you're a fraud in your own thread

i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right?

You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown.

well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money.

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

Quote
But, note that on a Universal Exchange, the barriers to trading in-kind fall dramatically.  On a Universal Exchange I could just as easily swap stock for a car as I could stock for stock.  Or real estate for stock as easily real estate for real estate.  On a Universal Exchange, everything becomes readily tradable with everything else!

Bitcoins thus have value as a method for avoiding or diminishing the need for trust, and the expensive infrastructure built up to instill it, and not merely a collectible or as money.  Trust is valuable, and few things are more demonstrably trustworthy than a public blockchain.

...

In short, a Universal Exchange will facilitate a barter economy like the world has never seen.  For the first time, barter transactions will be nearly as easy as cash transactions (and in many cases even easier).  This will have a great many revolutionary impacts.  It will impact "trusted" third parties the most and soonest, but it will also impact governments, human relationships, law, accounting, economics, and a great many other fields.  And, perhaps most of all, it may just eventually make the whole concept of "money" unnecessary and obsolete.  With a Universal Exchange, a common currency, in the traditional sense of the word, isn't hardly necessary.

http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.html

Total misunderstanding. If you implement the universal exchange, you still need money to hold value between transactions. You could hold something else, but in that case, what you and others would prefer to hold, would become the money. The stuff that has the best money qualities. Include bitcoin, which is the best money, in the bucket of goods traded, and you are good to go.




brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:54:53 AM
 #17499

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?



it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post

a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.


"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
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 01:58:01 AM
 #17500

A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money

i strongly disagree with this.  there is no greater network effect than money.  nor one greater to disrupt.  THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies.  it is all about fiat money corruption.  in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform.  much like WoW.  i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever.  these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets.  this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function.  all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario.

with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function.  all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game:  The Money Game on a world stage.  there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game.  why do you wish to shoot so low?

http://i.imgur.com/TFahTPe.png
they are the same proposition.

if you read the original link, you would be able to infer that sound money, Bitcoin as you know it is the only way to achieve Universal Exchange.
The author has painted a picture where your bitcoins are invisible, the idea is more like an Austrian barter Zeitgeist Universal exchange run on sound money.

and yes SC are a threat to that vision.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 ... 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!